René Descartes (1596â€1650) Essay

Renà © Descartes is often credited with being the â€Å"Father of Modern Philosophy.† This title is justified due both to his break with the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian philosophy prevalent at his time and to his development and promotion of the new, mechanistic sciences. His fundamental break with Scholastic philosophy was twofold. First, Descartes thought that the Scholastics’ method was prone to doubt given their reliance on sensation as the source for all knowledge. Second, he wanted to replace their final causal model of scientific explanation with the more modern, mechanistic model. Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This â€Å"hyperbolic doubt† then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at anepistem ological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that â€Å"I exist† is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Once this conclusion is reached, Descartes can proceed to rebuild his system of previously dubious beliefs on this absolutely certain foundation. These beliefs, which are re-established with absolute certainty, include the existence of a world of bodies external to the mind, the dualistic distinction of the immaterial mind from the body, and his mechanistic model of physics based on the clear and distinct ideas of geometry. This points toward his second, major break with the Scholastic Aristotelian tradition in that Descartes intended to replace their system based on final causal explanations with his system based on mechanistic principles. Descartes also applied this mechanistic framework to the operation of plant, animal and human bodies, sensation and the passions. All of this eventually culminating in a moral sys tem based on the notion of â€Å"generosity.† The Modern Turn a. Against Scholasticism Descartes is often called the â€Å"Father of Modern Philosophy,† implying that he provided the seed for a new philosophy that broke away from the old in important ways. This â€Å"old† philosophy is Aristotle’s as it was appropriated and interpreted throughout the later medieval period. In fact, Aristotelianism was so entrenched in the intellectual institutions of Descartes’ time that commentators argued that evidence for its the truth could be found in the Bible. Accordingly, if someone were to try to refute some main Aristotelian tenet, then he could be accused of holding a position contrary to the word of God and be punished. However, by Descartes’ time, many had come out in some way against one Scholastic-Aristotelian thesis or other. So, when Descartes argued for the implementation of his modern system of philosophy, breaks with the Scholastic tradition were not unprecedented. Descartes broke with this tradition in at least two fundamental way s. The first was his rejection of substantial forms as explanatory principles in physics. A substantial form was thought to be an immaterial principle of material organization that resulted in a particular thing of a certain kind. The main principle of substantial forms was the final cause or purpose of being that kind of thing. For example, the bird called the swallow. The substantial form of â€Å"swallowness† unites with matter so as to organize it for the sake of being a swallow kind of thing. This also means that any dispositions or faculties the swallow has by virtue of being that kind of thing is ultimately explained by the goal or final cause of being a swallow. So, for instance, the goal of being a swallow is the cause of the swallow’s ability to fly. Hence, on this account, a swallow flies for the sake of being a swallow. Although this might be true, it does not say anything new or useful about swallows, and so it seemed to Descartes that Scholastic philosophy and science was incapable of discovering any new or useful knowledge. Descartes rejected the use of substantial forms and their concomitant final causes in physics precisely for this reason. Indeed, his essay Meteorology, that appeared alongside the Discourse on Method, was intended to show that clearer and more fruitful explana tions can be obtained without reference to substantial forms but only by way of deductions from the configuration and motion of parts. Hence, his point was to show that mechanistic principles are better suited for making progress in the physical  sciences. Another reason Descartes rejected substantial forms and final causes in physics was his belief that these notions were the result of the confusion of the idea of the body with that of the mind. In theSixth Replies, Descartes uses the Scholastic conception of gravity in a stone, to make his point. On this account, a characteristic goal of being a stone was a tendency to move toward the center of the earth. This explanation implies that the stone has knowledge of this goal, of the center of the earth and of how to get there. But how can a stone know anything, since it does not think? So, it is a mistake to ascribe mental properties like knowledge to entirely physical things. This mistake should be avoided by clearly distinguishing the idea of the mind from the idea of the body. Descartes considered himself to be the first to do this. His expulsion of the metaphysi cal principles of substantial forms and final causes helped clear the way for Descartes’ new metaphysical principles on which his modern, mechanistic physics was based. The second fundamental point of difference Descartes had with the Scholastics was his denial of the thesis that all knowledge must come from sensation. The Scholastics were devoted to the Aristotelian tenet that everyone is born with a clean slate, and that all material for intellectual understanding must be provided through sensation. Descartes, however, argued that since the senses sometimes deceive, they cannot be a reliable source for knowledge. Furthermore, the truth of propositions based on sensation is naturally probabilistic and the propositions, therefore, are doubtful premises when used in arguments. Descartes was deeply dissatisfied with such uncertain knowledge. He then replaced the uncertain premises derived from sensation with the absolute certainty of the clear and distinct ideas perceived by the mind alone, as will be explained below. b. Descartes’ Project In the preface to the French edition of the Principles of Philosophy, Descartes uses a tree as a metaphor for his holistic view of philosophy. â€Å"The roots are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciences, which may be reduced to three principal ones, namely medicine, mechanics and morals† (AT IXB 14: CSM I 186). Although Descartes does not expand much more on this image, a few other insights into his overall project can be discerned. First, notice that  metaphysics constitutes the roots securing the rest of the tree. For it is in Descartes’ metaphysics where an absolutely certain and secure epistemological foundation is discovered. This, in turn, grounds knowledge of the geometrical properties of bodies, which is the basis for his physics. Second, physics constitutes the trunk of the tree, which grows up directly from the roots and provides the basis for the rest of the sciences. Third, the sciences of medicine, mechanics and morals grow out of the trunk of physics, which implies that these other sciences are just applications of his mechanistic science to particular subject areas. Finally, the fruits of the philosophy tree are mainly found on these three branches, which are the sciences most useful and beneficial to humankind. However, an endeavor this grand cannot be conducted haphazardly but should be carried out in an orderly and systematic way. Hence, before even attempting to plant this tree, Descartes must first figure out a method for doing so. Method Aristotle and subsequent medieval dialecticians set out a fairly large, though limited, set of acceptable argument forms known as â€Å"syllogisms† composed of a general or major premise, a particular or minor premise and a conclusion. Although Descartes recognized that these syllogistic forms preserve truth from premises to conclusion such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, he still found them faulty. First, these premises are supposed to be known when, in fact, they are merely believed, since they express only probabilities based on sensation. Accordingly, conclusions derived from merely probable premises can only be probable themselves, and, therefore, these probable syllogisms serve more to increase doubt rather than knowledge Moreover, the employment of this method by those steeped in the Scholastic tradition had led to such subtle conjectures and plausible arguments that counter-arguments were easily constructed, leading to profound confusio n. As a result, the Scholastic tradition had become such a confusing web of arguments, counter-arguments and subtle distinctions that the truth often got lost in the cracks. (Rules for the Direction of the Mind, AT X 364, 405-406 & 430: CSM I 11-12, 36 & 51-52). Descartes sought to avoid these difficulties through the clarity and absolute certainty of geometrical-style demonstration. In geometry, theorems are deduced from a set of self-evident axioms and universally agreed upon  definitions. Accordingly, direct apprehension of clear, simple and indubitable truths (or axioms) by intuition and deductions from those truths can lead to new and indubitable knowledge. Descartes found this promising for several reasons. First, the ideas of geometry are clear and distinct, and therefore they are easily understood unlike the confused and obscure ideas of sensation. Second, the propositions constituting geometrical demonstrations are not probabilistic conjectures but are absolutely certain so as to be immune from doubt. This has the additional advantage that any proposition derived from some one or combination of these absolutely certain truths will itself be absolutely certain. Hence, geometry’s rules of inference preserve absolutely certain truth from simple, indubitable and intuitively grasped axioms to their deductive consequences unlike the probable syllogisms of the Scholastics. The choice of geometrical method was obvious for Descartes given his previous success in applying this method to other disciplines like optics. Yet his application of this method to philosophy was not unproblematic due to a revival of ancient arguments for global or radical skepticism based on the doubtfulness of human reasoning. But Descartes wanted to show that truths both intuitively grasped and deduced are beyond this possibility of doubt. His tactic was to show that, despite the best skeptical arguments, there is at least one intuitive truth that is beyond all doubt and from which the rest of human knowledge can be deduced. This is precisely the project of Descartes’ seminal work, Meditations on First Philosophy. In the First Meditation, Descartes lays out several arguments for doubting all of his previously held beliefs. He first observes that the senses sometimes deceive, for example, objects at a distance appear to be quite small, and surely it is not prudent to trust someone (or something) that has deceived us even once. However, although this may apply to sensations derived under certain circumstances, doesn ’t it seem certain that â€Å"I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing gown, holding this piece of paper in my hands, and so on†? (AT VII 18: CSM II 13). Descartes’ point is that even though the senses deceive us some of the time, what basis for doubt exists for the immediate belief that, for example, you are reading this article? But maybe the belief of reading this article or of sitting by the fireplace is not based on true sensations at all but on the false sensations found in dreams. If such sensations are just  dreams, then it is not really the case that you are reading this article but in fact you are in bed asleep. Since there is no principled way of distinguishing waking life from dreams, any belief based on sensation has been shown to be doubtful. This includes not only the mundane beliefs about reading articles or sitting by the fire but even the beliefs of experimental science are doubtful, because the observations upon which they are based may not be true but mere dream images. Therefore, all beliefs based on sensation have been called into doubt, because it might all be a dream. This, however, does not pertain to mathematical beliefs, since they are not based on sensation but on reason. For even though one is dreaming, for example, that, 2 + 3 = 5, the certainty of this proposition is not called into doubt, because 2 + 3 = 5 whether the one believing it is awake or dreaming. Descartes continues to wonder about whether or not God could make him believe there is an earth, sky and other extended things when, in fact, these things do not exist at all. In fact, people sometimes make mistakes about things they think are most certain such as mathematical calculations. But maybe people are not mistaken just some of the time but all of the time such that believing that 2 + 3 = 5 is some kind of persistent and collective mistake, and so the sum of 2 + 3 is really something other than 5. However, such universal deception seems inconsistent with God’s supreme goodness. Indeed, even the occasional deception of mathematical miscalculation also seems inconsistent with God’s goodness, yet people do sometimes make mistakes. Then, in line with the skeptics, Descartes supposes, for the sake of his method, that God does not exist, but instead there is an evil demon with supreme power and cunning that puts all his efforts into deceiving him so that he is always mistaken about everything, including mathematics. In this way, Descartes called all of his previous beliefs into doubt through some of the best skeptical arguments of his day But he was still not satisfied and decided to go a step further by considering false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. So, by the end of the First Meditation, Descartes finds himself in a whirlpool of false beliefs. However, it is important to realize that these doubts and the supposed falsehood of all his beliefs are for the sake of his method: he does not really believe that he is dreaming or is being deceived by an evil demon; he recognizes that his doubt is merely hyperbolic. But the point of this  Ã¢â‚¬Å"methodological† or ‘hyperbolic† doubt is to clear the mind of preconceived opinions that might obscure the truth. The goal then is to find something that cannot be doubted even though an evil demon is deceiving him and even though he is dreaming. This first indubitable truth will then serve as an intuitively graspe d metaphysical â€Å"axiom† from which absolutely certain knowledge can be deduced. For more, see Cartesian skepticism. The Mind a. Cogito, ergo sum In the Second Meditation, Descartes tries to establish absolute certainty in his famous reasoning: Cogito, ergo sum or â€Å"I think, therefore I am.† These Meditations are conducted from the first person perspective, from Descartes.’ However, he expects his reader to meditate along with him to see how his conclusions were reached. This is especially important in the Second Meditation where the intuitively grasped truth of â€Å"I exist† occurs. So the discussion here of this truth will take place from the first person or â€Å"I† perspective. All sensory beliefs had been found doubtful in the previous meditation, and therefore all such beliefs are now considered false. This includes the belief that I have a body endowed with sense organs. But does the supposed falsehood of this belief mean that I do not exist? No, for if I convinced myself that my beliefs are false, then surely there must be an â€Å"I† that was convinced. Moreover, even if I am being deceived by an evil demon, I must exist in order to be deceived at all. So â€Å"I must finally conclude that the proposition, ‘I am,’ ‘I exist,’ is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind† (AT VII 25: CSM II 16-17). This just means that the mere fact that I am thinking, regardless of whether or not what I am thinking is true or false, implies that there must be something engaged in that activity, namely an â€Å"I.† Hence, â€Å"I exist† is an indubitable and, therefore, absolutely certain belief that serves as an axiom from which other, absolutely certain truths can be deduced. b. The Nature of the Mind and its Ideas The Second Meditation continues with Descartes asking, â€Å"What am I?† After discarding the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian concept of a human being as a rational animal due to the inherent difficulties of defining â€Å"rational† and â€Å"animal,† he finally concludes that he is a thinking thing, a mind: â€Å"A  thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sense perceptions† (AT VII 28: CSM II 19). In the Principles, part I, sections 32 and 48, Descartes distinguishes intellectual perception and volition as what properly belongs to the nature of the mind alone while imagination and sensation are, in some sense, faculties of the mind insofar as it is united with a body. So imagination and sensation are faculties of the mind in a weaker sense than intellect and will, since they require a body in order to perform their functions. Finally, in the Sixth Meditation, Descartes claims that the mind or â€Å"I† is a non-extended thing. Now, since extension is the nature of body, is a necessary feature of body, it follows that the mind is by its nature not a body but an immaterial thing. Therefore, what I am is an immaterial thinking thing with the faculties of intellect and will. It is also important to notice that the mind is a substance and the modes of a thinking substance are its ideas. For Descartes a substance is a thing requiring nothing else in order to exist. Strictly speaking, this applies only to God whose existence is his essence, but the term â€Å"substance† can be applied to creatures in a qualified sense. Minds are substances in that they require nothing except God’s concurrence, in order to exist. But ideas are â€Å"modes† or â€Å"ways† of thinking, and, therefore, modes are not substances, since they must be the ideas of some mind or other. So, ideas require, in addition to God’s concurrence, some created thinking substance in order to exist (see Principles of Philosophy, part I, sections 51 & 52). Hence the mind is an immaterial thinking substance, while its ideas are its modes or ways of thinking. Descartes continues on to distinguish three kinds of ideas at the beginning of the Third Meditation, namely those that are fabricated, adventitious, or innate. Fabricated ideas are mere inventions of the mind. Accordingly, the mind can control them so that they can be examined and set aside at will and their internal content can be changed. Adventitious ideas are sensations produced by some material thing existing externally to the mind. But, unlike fabrications, adventitious ideas cannot be examined and set aside at will nor can their internal content be manipulated by the mind. For example, no matter how hard one tries, if someone is standing next to a fire, she cannot help but feel the heat as heat. She cannot set aside the sensory idea of heat by merely willing it as we can do with our idea of Santa Claus, for example. She also cannot change its internal content so as to feel something other than heat–say, cold. Finally, innate ideas are placed in the mind by God at creation. These ideas can be examined and set aside at will but their internal content cannot be manipulated. Geometrical ideas are paradigm examples of innate ideas. For example, the idea of a triangle can be examined and set aside at will, but its internal content cannot be manipulated so as to cease being the idea of a three-sided figure. Other examples of innate ideas would be metaphysical principles like â€Å"what is done cannot be undone,† the idea of the mind, and the idea of God. Descartes’ idea of God will be discussed momentarily, but let’s consider his claim that the mind is better known than the body. This is the main point of the wax example found in the Second Meditation. Here, Descartes pauses from his methodological doubt to examine a particular piece of wax fresh from the honeycomb: It has not yet quite lost the taste of the honey; it retains some of the scent of flowers from which it was gathered; its color shape and size are plain to see; it is hard, cold and can be handled without difficulty; if you rap it with your knuckle it makes a sound. (AT VII 30: CSM II 20) The point is that the senses perceive certain qualities of the wax like its hardness, smell, and so forth. But, as it is moved closer to the fire, all of these sensible qualities change. â€Å"Look: the residual taste is eliminated, the smell goes away, the color changes, the shape is lost, the size increases, it becomes liquid and hot† (AT VII 30: CSM II 20). Howeve r, despite these changes in what the senses perceive of the wax, it is still judged to be the same wax now as before. To warrant this judgment, something that does not change must have been perceived in the wax. This reasoning establishes at least three important points. First, all sensation involves some sort of judgment, which is a mental mode. Accordingly, every sensation is, in some sense, a mental mode, and â€Å"the more attributes [that is, modes] we discover in the same thing or substance, the clearer is our knowledge of that substance† (AT VIIIA 8: CSM I 196). Based on this principle, the mind is better known than the body, because it has ideas about both extended and mental things and not just of extended things, and so it has discovered more modes in itself than in bodily substances. Second, this is also supposed to show that what is unchangeable in the wax is its extension in length, breadth and depth, which is not perceivable by the senses but by the mind  alone. The shape and size of the wax are modes of this extension and can, therefore, change. But the extension constituting this wax remains the same and permits the judgment that the body with the modes existing in it after being moved by the fire is the same body as before even though all of its sensible qualities have changed. One final lesson is that Descartes is attempting to wean his reader from reliance on sense images as a source for, or an aid to, knowledge. Instead, people should become accustomed to thinking without images in order to clearly understand things not readily or accurately represented by them, for example, God and the mind. So, according to Descartes, immaterial, mental things are better known and, therefore, are better sources of knowledge than extended things. God a. The Causal Arguments At the beginning of the Third Meditation only â€Å"I exist† and â€Å"I am a thinking thing† are beyond doubt and are, therefore, absolutely certain. From these intuitively grasped, absolutely certain truths, Descartes now goes on to deduce the existence of something other than himself, namely God. Descartes begins by considering what is necessary for something to be the adequate cause of its effect. This will be called the â€Å"Causal Adequacy Principle† and is expressed as follows: â€Å"there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause,† which in turn implies that something cannot come from nothing (AT VII 40: CSM II 28). Here Descartes is espousing a causal theory that implies whatever is possessed by an effect must have been given to it by its cause. For example, when a pot of water is heated to a boil, it must have received that heat from some cause that had at least that much heat. Moreover, som ething that is not hot enough cannot cause water to boil, because it does not have the requisite reality to bring about that effect. In other words, something cannot give what it does not have. Descartes goes on to apply this principle to the cause of his ideas. This version of the Causal Adequacy Principle states that whatever is contained objectively in an idea must be contained either formally or eminently in the cause of that idea. Definitions of some key terms are now in order. First, the objective reality contained in an idea is just its representational content; in other words, it is the â€Å"object† of the idea or what that idea is about. The idea of the sun, for instance, contains  the reality of the sun in it objectively. Second, the formal reality contained in something is a reality actually contained in that thing. For example, the sun itself has the formal reality of extension since it is actually an extended thing or body. Finally, a reality is contained in something eminently when that reality is contained in it in a higher form such that (1) the thing does not possess that reality formally, but (2) it has the ability to cause that reality formally in something else. For example, God is not formally an extended thing but solely a thinking thing; however, he is eminently the extended universe in that it exists in him in a higher form, and accordingly he has the ability to cause its existence. The main point is that the Causal Adequacy Principle also pertains to the causes of ideas so that, for instance, the idea of the sun must be caused by something that contains the reality of the sun either actually (formally) or in some higher form (eminently). Once this principle is established, Descartes looks for an idea of which he could not be the cause. Based on this principle, he can be the cause of the objective reality of any idea that he has either formally or eminently. He is formally a finite substance, and so he can be the cause of any idea with the objective reality of a finite substance. Moreover, since finite substances require only God’s concurrence to exist and modes require a finite substance and God, finite substances are more real than modes. Accordingly, a finite substance is not formally but eminently a mode, and so he can be the cause of all his ideas of modes. But the idea of God is the idea of an infinite substance. Since a finite substance is less rea l than an infinite substance by virtue of the latter’s absolute independence, it follows that Descartes, a finite substance, cannot be the cause of his idea of an infinite substance. This is because a finite substance does not have enough reality to be the cause of this idea, for if a finite substance were the cause of this idea, then where would it have gotten the extra reality? But the idea must have come from something. So something that is actually an infinite substance, namely God, must be the cause of the idea of an infinite substance. Therefore, God exists as the only possible cause of this idea. Notice that in this argument Descartes makes a direct inference from having the idea of an infinite substance to the actual existence of God. He provides another argument that is cosmological in nature in response to a possible objection to this first  argument. This objection is that the cause of a finite substance with the idea of God could also be a finite substance with the idea of God. Yet what was the cause of that finite substance with the idea of God? Well, another finite substance with the idea of God. But what was the cause of that finite substance with the idea of God? Well, another finite substance . . . and so on to infinity. Eventually an ultimate cause of the idea of God must be reached in order to provide an adequate explanation of its existence in the first place and thereby stop the infinite regress. That ultimate cause must be God, because only he has enough reality to cause it. So, in the end, Descartes claims to have deduced God’s existence from the intuitions of his own existence as a finite substance with the idea of God and the Causal Adequacy Principle, which is â€Å"manifest by the natural light,† thereby indicating that it is supposed to be an absolutely certain intuition as well. b. The Ontological Argument The ontological argument is found in the Fifth Meditation and follows a more straightforwardly geometrical line of reasoning. Here Descartes argues that God’s existence is deducible from the idea of his nature just as the fact that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles is deducible from the idea of the nature of a triangle. The point is that this property is contained in the nature of a triangle, and so it is inseparable from that nature. Accordingly, the nature of a triangle without this property is unintelligible. Similarly, it is apparent that the idea of God is that of a supremely perfect being, that is, a being with all perfections to the highest degree. Moreover, actual existence is a perfection, at least insofar as most would agree that it is better to actually exist than not. Now, if the idea of God did not contain actual existence, then it would lack a perfection. Accordingly, it would no longer be the idea of a supremely perfect being but the idea of something with an imperfection, namely non-existence, and, therefore, it would no longer be the idea of God. Hence, the idea of a supremely perfect being or God without existence is unintelligible. This means that existence is contained in the essence of an infinite substance, and therefore God must exist by his very nature. Indeed, any attempt to conceive of God as not existing would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley – it just cannot be done. 6. The Epistemological Foundation a. Absolute Certainty and the Cartesian Circle Recall that in the First Meditation Descartes supposed that an evil demon was deceiving him. So as long as this supposition remains in place, there is no hope of gaining any absolutely certain knowledge. But he was able to demonstrate God’s existence from intuitively grasped premises, thereby providing, a glimmer of hope of extricating himself from the evil demon scenario. The next step is to demonstrate that God cannot be a deceiver. At the beginning of the Fourth Meditation, Descartes claims that the will to deceive is â€Å"undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness† so as to be an imperfection. But, since God has all perfections and no imperfections, it follows that God cannot be a deceiver. For to conceive of God with the will to deceive would be to conceive him to be both having no imperfections and having one imperfection, which is impossible; it would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley. This conclusion, in addition to God’s existenc e, provides the absolutely certain foundation Descartes was seeking from the outset of the Meditations. It is absolutely certain because both conclusions (namely that God exists and that God cannot be a deceiver) have themselves been demonstrated from immediately grasped and absolutely certain intuitive truths. This means that God cannot be the cause of human error, since he did not create humans with a faculty for generating them, nor could God create some being, like an evil demon, who is bent on deception. Rather, humans are the cause of their own errors when they do not use their faculty of judgment correctly. Second, God’s non-deceiving nature also serves to guarantee the truth of all clear and distinct ideas. So God would be a deceiver, if there were a clear and distinct idea that was false, since the mind cannot help but believe them to be true. Hence, clear and distinct ideas must be true on pain of contradiction. This also implies that knowledge of God’s existence is required for having any absolutely certain knowledge. Accordingly, atheists, who are ignorant of God’s existence, cannot have absolutely certain knowledge of any kind, including scientific knowledge. But this veridical guarantee gives rise to a serious problem within the Meditations, stemming from the claim that all clear and distinct ideas are ultimately guaranteed by God’s existence, which is not established  until the Third Meditation. This means that those truths reached in the Second Meditation, such as â€Å"I exist† and â€Å"I am a thinking thing,† and those principles used in the Third Meditation to conclude that God exists, are not clearly and distinctly understood, and so they cannot be absolutely certain. Hence, since the premises of the argument for God’s existence are not absolutely certain, the conclusion that God exists cannot be certain either. This is what is known as the â€Å"Cartesian Circle,† because Descartes’ reasoning seems to go in a circle in that he needs God’s existence for the absolute certainty of the earlier truths and yet he needs the absolute certainty of these earlier truths to demonstrate God’s existence with absolute certainty. Descartes’ response to this concern is found in the Second Replies. There he argues that God’s veridical guarantee only pertains to the recollection of arguments and not the immediate awaRenà ©ss of an argument’s clarity and distinctness currently under consideration. Hence, those truths reached before the demonstration of God’s existence are clear and distinct when they are being attended to but cannot be relied upon as absolutely certain when those arguments are recalled later on. But once God’s existence has been demonstrated, the recollection of the clear and distinct perception of the premises is sufficient for absolutely certain and, therefore, perfect knowledge of its conclusion (see also the Fifth Meditation at AT VII 69-70: CSM II XXX).

Flame Detector

INFRA-RED FLAME DETECTION 123 S200+ SERIES TRIPLE IR FLAME DETECTORS USER MANUAL S200+ USER MANUAL INDEX PAGE A) INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Flame Detection Operation 1 3. B) Introduction 2. General Construction 4 PRODUCT APPLICATION 5 1. C) Application 5 2. Benefits of the S200+ Series 6 8 Introduction 8 2. Electrical Characteristics 8 3. Mechanical Characteristics 13 4. Environmental 16 5. Operation 17 6. Performance Characteristics 22 7. Design of System 30 8. D) SYSTEM DESIGN INFORMATION 1. Approvals and Compliance with Standards nd Patents 31 INSTALLATION 38 1. General 38 2. Mounting a Detector 38 3. E) Detector Wiring 40 4. Initial Wiring Check 55 57 1. System Checks 57 2. F) COMMISSIONING Connecting and Commissioning the Detectors 57 64 1. G) MAINTENANCE 64 General ORDERING INFORMATION APPENDIX 1 CONNECTING S241+ AS A CURRENT SOURCE DEVICE 66 67 SECTION A 1. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The S200+ range of triple IR flame detectors comprises five flame detector variants. The detectors sha re the same flame detection circuitry, optics and main mechanical housing.Each variant is available as an Intrinsically Safe (i) or Flameproof (f) version except the S261+ which is available only in the Flameproof version. The five variants are: VARIANT Conventional 2-Wire Interface 4-20mA Current Loop Interface Analogue Addressable Loop Interface Relay Interface MX Digital Interface INTRINSICALLY SAFE S231i+ S241i+ S251i+ S271i+ FLAMEPROOF S231f+ S241f+ S251f+ S261f+ S271f+ The S200+ Advanced Flame Detector offers a major improvement in both flame detection capability and immunity to blackbody radiation.The S200+ is available in intrinsically safe and flameproof models except for the S261f+ which is available only as a flameproof version. In particular, the range incorporates models for conventional detection circuits (S231i+, S231f+), models for connection to 4-20 mA current loop (S241i+, S241f+), models for connection to Thorn Security Minerva analogue addressable systems (S251i+ , S251f+), a flameproof model with relay outputs (S261f+) and models for connection to Minerva MX Digital systems (S271i+, S271f+).The output of the S241+ provides a truly analogue current output and the S251+ and S271+ provide an additional level of signalling to indicate a pre-alarm condition. The detectors have been tested by LPCB to EN 54 : Part 10 and have been classified as Class 1 flame detectors on the 50m and 25m range settings and as Class 3 on the 12m range setting. For marine applications, the detectors have been tested to Lloyd’s Register Test Specification Number 1 (2002). Environmental Category ENV1, 2, 3 and 5 and to DNV Certification Notes No. 2. 4 (April 2001). 2.FLAME DETECTION OPERATION The S200+ detectors analyse radiant energy at three different wavelengths and as such offer the full benefits of the triple IR flame detector. The detector uses a well proven, flame detection technique. This is based on monitoring for modulated infra-red radiation in the 4. 3? m waveband corresponding to CO2 emission. It incorporates Thorn Security patented techniques for improved rejection of solar energy by using a combination of two 4. 3? m filters for Gaussian noise rejection by averaging the output signal of two separate sensor elements.Three different alarm delays of 3s, 6s and 12s are provided in all versions of the S200+. 2. 1 BLACKBODY REJECTION The S200+ implements a new concept for eliminating nuisance alarms from modulated blackbody sources. The new design incorporates a novel optical filter(1) which enables a single electronic infra-red sensor to measure the radiated energy present in two separate wavebands placed on either side of the flame detection waveband, at 3. 8? m and 4. 8? m respectively (see Fig A-1).The signal obtained from this ‘guard’ channel is cross-correlated with the signal from the flame detection channel to provide an accurate prediction of the non-flame energy present in the flame detection waveband. This prediction is independent of the temperature of the radiation source, allowing the S200+ to provide blackbody rejection over a wide range of source temperatures. (1) Patented (see Section C, 8. 4). 1 Fig. A-1 shows the amount of energy given by a ‘hot’ object (blackbody) as viewed in the electromagnetic spectrum. This curve has a peak which moves further to the left with higher temperature objects.The amount of energy seen between 3. 8? m and 4. 8? m can be approximated to a linear function. Thus, a measurement of the energy at these two wavelengths provides information to calculate with sufficient accuracy the level of blackbody radiation at the intermediate flame detection wavelength of 4. 3? m. The energy due to the emission from hot carbon dioxide given by a flame is superimposed on that from any blackbody in the detector field of view without adding any significant emissions at 3. 8? m or 4. 8? m, thus enabling proper segregation between non-flame signals and flame signals.Because a large fire will possibly produce a large amount of black smoke which will behave like a blackbody and may weaken the carbon dioxide peak, signals greater than a pre-determined upper limit will be classed as a fire. The use of an optical processing technique, as opposed to the use of two separate electronic sensors for the guard channel, improves the overall reliability of the detector by reducing the number of components and eliminating the need for complex calibration procedures during manufacture. TEMPERATURE MOVEMENT FLAME ENERGY HOT BLACKBODYCOLD BLACKBODY 3. 8? m 4. 3? m 4. 8? m WAVELENGTH Fig. A-1 Radiation from Objects 2. 2 DETECTION RANGE The S200+ range can detect on axis a fully developed 0. 1m2 n-heptane or petrol pan fire at up to 50m and the same fire up to 25m on the 25m setting. A 12m setting is also available. 2 2. 3 DETECTION OF FLAME IN THE PRESENCE OF BLACKBODY RADIATION The ability of the detector to determine accurately the amount of non-flame radiation received at any one time by the flame detection channel allows a variable alarm threshold to be determined (see Fig. A-2).This threshold is positioned so as to minimise the possibility of a false alarm due to the presence of modulated blackbody sources of different temperature and intensity. FLAME ENERGY ALARM THRESHOLD FLAME SIGNALS BLACKBODY SIGNALS CROSS-CORRELATED ENERGY Fig. A-2 2. 4 Signal Processing DETECTOR CONDITION SIGNALLING The S200+ incorporates two different colour light emitting diodes, red for Alarm and yellow for Fault. By using different flashing rates for the yellow (Fault) LED, separate indication of detector (electronic) fault and ‘dirty’ window (optical integrity monitoring) is provided.The yellow LED is not fitted to the S251+ and S271+ detectors. The S241+ provides an analogue output current, in the range 4-20mA, proportional to the flame detection signal. The S251+ provides two pre-set current values to signal alarm and pre-alarm cond itions. Pre-set currents, in the range 0-4mA, are used to separately signal detector (electronic) fault and ‘dirty' window for both detector types. The S271+ shows the same signalling conditions as the S251+ but instead of the units being in mA, they are signalled digitally using the MX protocol. 3 3. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION Fig. A-3 shows a general view of a complete detector.Fig. A-3 S200+ Detector – General View The detector is of robust construction to allow its use in harsh environments. The detector comprises a two-part stainless steel enclosure. The front section of the enclosure contains the encapsulated electro-optical assembly which is connected to the terminal board on the rear section by a small cableform. A sapphire window is fitted in the front of the housing. The window allows infra-red radiation to fall on the sensors, the LED alarm and fault indicators are visible through the window. The front section of the enclosure is attached to the rear section by fou r captive screws.A seal provided between the front and rear sections ensures protection to IP66 and IP67. Two 20mm cable entries are provided at the bottom. All electrical connections are made to three 4-way terminal blocks (four 4-way terminal blocks for the S261f+). The detector may be fitted directly to a suitable surface or an optional adjustable mounting bracket may be used. A stainless steel guard is fitted to the ‘flameproof’ versions to protect the integrity of the window (shown in Fig. A-3). Until the end of 2004, the detectors had two cable entries at the bottom and one at the top.The detector design has been changed to remove the top cable entry due to problems with water ingress where the top cable entry has not been sealed properly during installation. 4 SECTION B – PRODUCT APPLICATION 1. APPLICATION 1. 1 GENERAL The detectors are intended for the protection of high-risk areas in which accidental fires are likely to result in flaming combustion with the production of carbon dioxide. Typical materials in this type of risk are: a) Flammable liquids, including petroleum products, alcohol, and glycol etc. b) Flammable gases including methane. c) Paper, wood and packing materials. ) Coal. e) Plastics. These substances ignite readily and burn rapidly, producing flame, often accompanied by large volumes of dark smoke. Note: The detectors are not designed to respond to flames emanating from fuels which do not contain carbon eg, hydrogen, ammonia, metals, and should not be used for such risks without satisfactory fire testing. The S200+ series, by virtue of their construction and rejection of spurious radiation, are suitable for use both indoors or outdoors in a wide range of applications. Note: 1. 2 The detectors must be mounted to a rigid support which will not move in windy conditions.This is to avoid false alarms due to detector movement modulating radiation from hot bodies at the edge of the field of view. Avoid mounting detectors where they are subject to high levels of vibration. USE IN HAZARDOUS ATMOSPHERES The S200i+ series detectors are ATEX/IECEx certified intrinsically safe, and are classified E Ex/ Ex ia IIC T5 or T4 (-40 °C ? Ta ? +80 °C). In an intrinsically safe system the detectors are suitable for use in hazardous zones 0, 1 and 2 where group IIC gases and vapours are present in explosive concentrations. See Section 8. 1 for full details. The S200f+ series detectors are ATEX certified ‘flameproof’.They are classified E Ex d IIC T6 or T5 (-20 °C ? Ta ? +80 °C) and are suitable for use in hazardous areas zones 1 and 2. The S200f+ detectors are also IECEx certified flameproof. They are classified Ex d IIC T6 or T5 (-20? C ? Ta ? +60? C) and are certified for use in hazardous areas zone 1 and zone 2. See Section 8. 2. 5 1. 3 USE IN NON-HAZARDOUS AREAS In non hazardous ares it is recommended the following detectors are fitted: S231i+, S241i+ and S251i+ without a barrier. These det ectors are electrically the same as the f+ versions. They are less expensive and have a wider field of view as they do not require the window guard.S261f+ (has no intrinsically safe version available). S271f+ Do not fit the S271i+ as for this detector the MX communications is optimised for use with an IS barrier. Its performance without a barrier is not characterised. Note: 1. 4 The S271i+ will not communicate without the EXI800 and barrier fitted. FEATURES †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ 2. A self-test facility is incorporated to test a number of characteristics, including the cleanliness of the window. The self-test may be initiated remotely. Switch selectable range settings. Switch selectable time to alarm settings.Operational range up to 50m, fuel dependent. Remote control of range. S271+ has fast detection using MX interrupt facility. Remote control of delay, range and remote test on S271+. Completely solar blind. Very low quiescent power consumption. High sensitivity to hydrocarbon fire in oily environments. Rugged stainless steel 316 housing and mounting bracket. Flexible mounting and angular adjustment. Ease of installation. Connection for remote LED. Selectable latching/non-latching alarm output (not S251+/S271+). Selectable latching/non-latching fault output (not S251+/S271+). BENEFITS OF THE S200+ SERIESInfra-red flame detectors offer certain benefits over detectors working in the visible or ultra-violet regions of the spectrum. For example they are: †¢ †¢ 6 Highly sensitive to flame thus increasing probability of early detection of hydrocarbon fires. Not greatly affected by window contamination by dirt and oil deposits thus decreasing maintenance frequency leading to operating cost reduction. †¢ †¢ Able to see flames through smoke, and able to see flames through high densities of solvent vapours thus increasing the probability of earl y detection of hydrocarbon fires over other (ultra-violet) detectors in the same conditions.Several detectors on a single 2-wire conventional or analog addressable circuit. The S200+ series have all the above benefits and additionally are: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Completely â€Å"solar-blind† in normal conditions, thus, eliminating false alarms due to direct or indirect sunlight. Insensitive to electric arcs thus eliminating false alarms from welding operations. Insensitive to artificial light sources. See Section C (6. 4) for more details on false alarm performance. Sealed to IP66 and IP67 (when suitable cable glands and sealant are used) ensuring long term reliability in harsh environments. 7SECTION C – SYSTEM DESIGN INFORMATION 1. INTRODUCTION The electrical, mechanical, environmental characteristics and the performance of the S200+ series flame detectors, must be taken into account when designing a system which uses these detectors. This information is give n below, together with guidance on detector siting. 2. ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2. 1 S231i+/S231f+ The S231i+/231f+ detectors are two-wire devices, designed to operate on any typical conventional fire detection control equipment providing a regulated 20V dc current monitoring loop, including controllers manufactured by Thorn Security.Compatibility should be assessed using the technical data below and it is recommended that evaluation tests are carried out prior to siting and installation. The quiescent current drain is very small and the alarm condition is signalled by a large increase in current demand. Resetting is achieved by removing the supply voltage for a period greater than 0. 5 seconds. 2. 1. 1 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER THORN SECURITY CONVENTIONAL DETECTORS The connection of Thorn Security’s plug-in conventional detectors, ie M300 and M600 ranges, in the same circuit as S231+ flame detectors is not generally recommended.S231+ flame detectors may be connected in the same circuit as S131/S161 type detectors. The number of S231+ detectors per zone should be assessed taking account of good engineering principles, controller characteristics and cable parameters. As a guide, most controllers will permit 4 S231+ units per zone. We do no recommend exceeding 6 x s231+ units per zone. Note: 1) S161 flame detectors may be connected in flameproof circuits and can, therefore, be connected with S231f+ flame detectors. 2) If detectors are mixed, then an S231+ detector must be the last detector n the zone or a fault condition on an S231+ detector will not be signalled to the controller. 2. 1. 2 TECHNICAL DATA Supply Voltage: Quiescent Current: Alarm Current: Alarm Output Mode: Reset Time/Voltage: 8 15V to 28V. (Voltage at the detector when not in alarm). 350? A (typical). 33mA (typical) at 24V source, supplied via 330 ohms. 38mA (typical) with remote LED fitted. 18mA (typical) with MTL 5061 barrier fitted. See Fig. C-1. Operation must be restricted to the saf e area shown by use of external resistance if necessary. Supply must be reduced to less than 2V for greater than 0. 5 seconds. Stabilisation time after eset/ power up: Equivalent Inductance: Equivalent Capacitance: 60 seconds (typical) to 90 seconds (maximum). 0mH. 1. 5nF. Note: 1) The maximum number of detectors that may be connected to a zone circuit is 6 (see 2. 1. 1). 2) The alarm currents shown above include current through a 4k7 end-of-line resistor. 3) In general, it is not possible to use a remote indicator on detectors which are supplied via a shunt barrier safety diode or galvanic isolator. 4) Where a remote LED is used, a 33 ohm resistor should be fitted in series with it to limit the current through the LED to approximately 30mA. 80REMOTE LED FITTED WITH SERIES 33OHM RESISTOR TOTAL CURRENT IN ALARM (mA) 70 60 50 40 SAFE OPERATING AREA 30 NO REMOTE LED 20 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 VOLTAGE AT DETECTOR (V) NOTE: 4k7 END-OF-LINE RESISTOR FITTED Fig. C-1 2. 2 Load Characteristics in Alarm S241i+/S241f+ The S241i+/S241f+ detectors provide a 4-20mA current sink output, suitable for standard programmable logic controllers. 2. 2. 1 TECHNICAL DATA Supply Voltage: 15V to 28V (Voltage at the detector). Quiescent Current: 350? A (typical), excluding signalling current. 9 Supply Current in Alarm: 12mA (typical), at 24V supply. 0mA (typical), with remote LED fitted. 10mA (typical), with 600 ohm barrier. 12mA (typical), with 600 ohm barrier + remote LED. Alarm Output Mode: 4-20mA CURRENT SINK. (See Appendix 1 for S241+ wired as a current source output). Signalling Currents: DISCRETE SIGNALLING (OLD SYSTEM) CONDITION AFD CURRENT TYP. (mA) Fault Normal Alarm 1. 5 4. 5 17. 0 Table 1: S241+ Discrete Signalling (Old System) CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE SIGNALLING (NEW SYSTEM) CONDITION AFD CURRENT TYP. (mA) Non Window Fault Window Fault Normal Flame Sensing 0. 0 2. 0 4. 0 5. 7 to 17. 0* Table 2: S241+ Continuously Variable Signalling (New System) * See Para 5. for Sensitivity (Range) Selection Note: The signalling mode is selected by means of a DIL switch, see section E 2. 1. In both discrete and continuously variable signalling the alarm LED will come on when a 4-20mA output exceeds 17. 0mA. Reset Time/Voltage: Supply must be reduced to less than 2V for greater than 0. 5 seconds. Stabilisation Time after reset /power up: 60 seconds (typical) to 90 seconds (maximum). Equivalent Inductance: 0mH. Equivalent Capacitance: 1. 5nF. Note: An external 33 ohm resistor should be fitted in series with a remote LED. S241+ is designed with a 4-20mA current sink output.However, it can be wired as a current source device with limitations. See Appendix 1 for details. 10 2. 3 S251i+/S251f+ The S251i+/251f+ detectors are analogue addressable devices which are designed to operate with the Minerva range of analogue addressable fire control equipment currently manufactured by Thorn Security Limited. 2. 3. 1 TECHNICAL DATA The maximum number of detectors that may be connected to a Minerva system loop is 50. The maximum number of detectors that may be connected to each barrier in a Hazardous Area circuit is 10. Average current consumption: 350? A Stabilisation Time after eset /power up: 60 seconds (typical) to 90 seconds (maximum). S251+ analogue addressable signalling currents: DISCRETE SIGNALLING (OLD SYSTEM) CONDITION AFD CURRENT TYP. (mA) MINERVA MEASUREMENT (mA) MINERVA LIMITS (mA) Fault Normal Alarm 0. 75 2. 25 9. 0 1. 5 4. 5 18. 0 0 to 3. 0 3. 0 to 10. 4 16. 2 minimum Table 3: S251+ Discrete Signalling (Old System) ENHANCED SIGNALLING MODE CONDITION AFD CURRENT TYP. (mA) MINERVA MEASUREMENT (mA) MINERVA LIMITS (mA) Non Window Fault Window Fault Normal Pre-Alarm Alarm 0 1. 5 3. 0 7. 0 9. 0 0 3. 0 6. 0 14. 0 18. 0 0 to 2. 0 2. 0 to 4. 0 4. 0 to 12. 12. 0 to 16. 0 16. 0 minimum Table 4: S251+ Enhanced Signalling (New System) Note: 1) The signalling mode is selected by means of a DIL switch, see Section E 2. 1, Table 3. 2) ‘Remote Ra nge’ and ‘Self Test’ selection is not available for the S251i+ when used with a shunt diode safety barrier. CAUTION: IF USING AN S251+ WORKING IN THE ENHANCED SIGNALLING MODE TO REPLACE AN S251, THE S251+ MUST BE CONFIGURED IN ‘CONSYS’ VERSION 12. 0 OR LATER. 11 2. 4 S261f+ The S261+ is only provided in a ‘flameproof’ version. The S261f+ provides a relay interface for alarm and fault conditions. 2. 4. 1TECHNICAL DATA Supply Voltage: Fault relay: Alarm relay: Quiescent Current: Alarm Current: Fault Current: Reset Time/Voltage: Stabilisation Time after reset /power up: 15V to 28V. (Voltage at the detector). Normally closed, opens under fault conditions. Normally open, closes under alarm conditions. 11mA. (typical) at 28V supply. 30mA. (typical) at 28V supply. 37mA. (typical) at 28V supply with remote LED fitted. 350? A. (typical). Supply must be reduced to less than 2V for greater than 0. 5 seconds. 60 seconds (typical) to 90 seconds (maxi mum). Note: 1) The relay contacts are rated 2A at 28V dc. ) An external 33 ohm resistor should be fitted in series with the remote LED. 2. 5 S271i+/S271f+ The S271+ is designed to operate with the Minerva MX range of digital addressable fire control equipment currently manufactured by Thorn Security Limited. 2. 5. 1 TECHNICAL DATA For the Maximum number of S271i+ detectors and maximum cable length connected to the MX Intrinsically Safe loop, refer to document 17A-02-ISLOOP MX Intrinsically Safe System – Loop Loading Calculation. Stabilisation Time after reset /power up: 60 seconds (typical) to 90 seconds (maximum). The average current consumption is 500?A. The S271+ digital signalling: CONDITION Non-Window Fault Window Fault Pre-Alarm Alarm Normal DELTA OUTPUT (Bits) ?10 ?51 and ? 11 ?153 ?190 ?68 Table 5: 12 3. MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3. 6 TECHNICAL DATA Dimensions (see Fig. C-2) Height: 167mm Width: 167mm Depth: 89. 5mm max (maximum depth with flameproof guard fitted 94m m) Weight: 3. 8kg Mounting Bracket Weight: 1. 1kg Materials Enclosure: Stainless steel 316L, ANC4BFCLC to BS3146 Part 2 Window: Sapphire Mounting Bracket: Stainless steel to BS1449 Part 2 316 S16 Screws etc. exposed to the elements: Bright stainless steel 316 Electronic Module:Encapsulated. Electrical Access: Standard M20 gland holes (two) 13 3 X FLAMEPROOF GUARD MOUNTING POSTS 4 x M8 SURFACE MOUNTING HOLES OPTICAL MONITORING REFLECTOR SAPPHIRE WINDOW 167 100 149. 3 167 76. 5 TAG LABEL 52. 5 2 X 20mm GLAND HOLES NOTE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH FLAMEPROOF GUARD FITTED (94mm) Fig. C-2 S200+ Series – Overall Dimensions 14 89. 5 max ‘SEE NOTE' 0 50 ADJUSTMENT 68. 5 RAD 4 x M8 SURFACE MOUNTING HOLES 100 22 0 149. 3 SURFACE MOUNTING DIMENSIONS 45 0 200mm CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR FULL ADJUSTMENT Fig. C-3 Adjustable Mounting Bracket and Surface Mounting Dimensions 15 4. 4. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL GENERALThe design and construction of the S200+ series detectors are such that they may be used ov er a wide range of environmental conditions. Relevant limits are given in Para 4. 2. 4. 2 4. 2. 1 TECHNICAL DATA TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, PROTECTION AND PRESSURE Operating temperature range For non hazardous installations: For hazardous installations using flameproof S200f+ detectors in ATEX certified applications: For hazardous installations using flameproof S200f+ detectors in IECEx applications: For hazardous installations using intrinsically safe S200i+ detectors in ATEX or IECEx applications: Storage temperature range:Relative humidity: Enclosure protection: Normal operating atmospheric pressure: Heat radiation from sun: -40 °C to +80 °C (110 °C for short durations) -20 °C to 80 °C -20 °C to 60 °C -40 °C to 80 °C -40 °C to +80 °C Up to 95% RH (non-condensing) Tested to IP66 and IP67* 910mbar to 1055mbar 0 to 1000Wm2 typical * Cable gland entries must be suitably sealed to achieve the required IP rating (see 3. 4 Section D). 4. 2. 2 VIBRATION AND SHOCK The S2 00+ series detectors are designed and tested for vibration and shock to EN54-10 (the Standard for flame detection components of automatic fire detection systems).For marine applications, the detectors have been tested to Lloyd’s Register Test Specification Number 1 (1996) Vibration Test 1 and to DNV Certification Notes No2. 4 (May 1995) Class A. 4. 2. 3 ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE The detector is insensitive to radio frequency interference. It has been designed and tested to the requirements of EN54-10 (the Standard for flame detection components of automatic fire detection systems) and BS EN 61000-6-3 Generic Emissions Residential Commercial and Light Industry and EN 50130-4, the generic standard for electromagnetic immunity within the European Union.The detectors have been tested to the product family standard for fire alarm systems, EN50130-4. Tests have proved the operation in field strengths of 10V/m at frequencies from 150kHz to 2000MHz with amplitude and pulse modulat ion, when installed in accordance with this manual. For Marine applications the detectors, have been tested to Lloyd’s Register Test Specification Number 1 (1996) E. M. I. Immunity for Electronic products and to DNV Certification Notes No. 2. 4 (May 1995) Electromagnetic Compatibility Tests. To comply with the above standards, ferrite tubes must be fitted to the detector base as shown in Fig. D3, Page 40. 16 4. 2. 4IONISING RADIATION The S200+ series, like other infra-red detectors, is insensitive to X-rays and gamma radiation as used in non-destructive testing. The detector will operate normally and will not false alarm when exposed to this type of radiation although long term exposure to high radiation levels may lead to permanent damage. 4. 2. 5 CORROSION The detector is able to withstand the effects of corrosion conditioning with sulphur dioxide (SO2) concentration as specified in EN54-10. For Marine applications the detectors have been tested to Lloyd’s Register T est Specification Number 1 (1996) Salt Mist test and to DNV Certification Notes No. . 4 (May 1995) Salt Mist Test. 5. OPERATION 5. 1 ALARM INDICATION A red LED is visible through the front window which gives the same indication for the S231+, S241+ and S261+ variants. Illumination indicates an alarm. The S251+ (analogue addressable variant) and the S271+ (digital addressable variant) indicate in the same manner as the other variants, but the LED is driven by the controller. In normal conditions the LED is pulsed at two second intervals for the S251+ and 5 seconds for the S271+. Continuous illumination indicates an alarm under control of the Minerva controller. 5. 2 ALARM SIGNALLINGThe detectors signal an alarm condition as follows: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ S231+ – Increase in current drawn from supply, see Fig. C-1. S241+ – Current drawn on the loop will be between 5. 7-17. 0mA. (A single value between 16. 0-19. 0mA is drawn for the S241 compatible mode) . S251+ – Returned current will be between 8. 3 and 9. 7mA. A pre-alarm function is also available which returns a current value between 6. 5 and 7. 5mA. The latter is not available for the S251 compatible mode. S261+ – Alarm relay will close. S271+ – Returned values will be ? 190 bits. A Pre-alarm function is also available which returns values of ? 153 bits.The S231+, S241+ and S261+ may be set as alarm latching or non-latching. When the S241+ is operated in the Continuously Variable Signalling mode, the alarm latching function is inoperative. The S251+/S271+ have only the non-latching mode. In the non-latching mode, if the alarm source is removed for greater than 5 seconds, then the detector will stop indicating an alarm. In the latching mode the controller must be reset to remove the alarm condition. Note: The use of an S231i+ in a non-latching mode is generally possible when the detector is connected after a shunt diode safety barrier but evaluation tests a re recommended. 7 5. 3 FAULT INDICATION For the S231+, S241+ and S261+ variants the yellow LED will flash indicating a fault. Different flashing rates are used to indicate different faults, as follows: †¢ †¢ Window obscuration: 0. 5Hz Detector fault: 2. 0Hz The S251+/S271+ will not provide a local indication for a fault, instead the fault indication will be displayed on the controller. 5. 4 FAULT SIGNALLING The detectors signal a fault condition as follows: S231+ – Open circuit fault band ie, the EOL resistor is made open circuit.The faulty detector puts 4 pulses of total width 45ms and level 55mA on the line which is detected by the S231+ connected at the end of the zone. This detector open circuits the EOL resistor. Note: The end detector in the zone must be an S231+ with the EOL fitted as it is this device which will signal a fault, the faulty detector will indicate with a flashing yellow LED. †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ S241+ – Current drawn on the lo op will be as follows: †¢ 0. 0 to 0. 5mA for a detector fault †¢ 1. 8 to 2. 2mA for a window fault †¢ 1. 3 to 1. 7mA for any fault in the S241 compatible mode S251+ – Analogue returned current will be as follows: †¢ 0. 0 to 0. mA for a detector fault †¢ 1. 3 to 1. 7mA for a window fault †¢ 0. 65 to 0. 85mA for any fault in the S251 compatible mode S261+ – Fault relay will open S271+ – Digital returned values will be as follows: †¢ between ? 51 and ? 11 bits for a window fault †¢ ? 10 for a non-window fault The S231+/S241+/S261+ detectors may be selected as fault latching or non-latching. In the nonlatching mode, the fault condition will be cancelled up to 80 seconds after the fault has been removed. The S251+/S271+ have only the non-latching mode. 18 5. 5 SENSITIVITY (RANGE) SELECTION The range is switch selectable on a 6-way DIL (4-way S271+) switch (S1, Fig.C-4) on the backbox terminal PCB. The following nominal ranges a re available: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Extended range. (50 metres) Normal range. (25 metres) Reduced range (12. 5 metres) 6m (S251f+ and S271f+ only) These ranges are for an n-heptane fire in a 0. 1m2 pan located on the main axis of the detector field of view. With the S241+ set to Continuously Variable Signalling mode (see Section E 2. 1), the nominal ranges above correspond to an alarm threshold set to 17mA. Laboratory tests indicate that setting the alarm thresholds at 9 and 15mA (as opposed to 17mA) will increase the range a fire is detected at by approximately 20 and 10% respectively.For the S251+/S271+, the detection distance for the PRE-ALARM function is approximately 18% higher than the ALARM distance. Range can also be selected in MX CONSYS and will take effect if all switches are in the OFF position from the controller for the S271+. There is provision for halving the range value selected by the switches. If the terminal connector ‘Range’ is connected t o 0V then the detection range is reduced to half that of the switch setting. This may be done by taking cables to a remote contact the other side of which is connected to the same 0V as the reference for ‘Line In’ supply. . 6 DELAY TO ALARM The minimum delay to alarm is 3 seconds from a fire being present in the field of view that is large enough to be detected. This delay is also switch selectable using 6-way (4-way S271+) DIL switch (S1, Fig. C-4), the following additional values are available: †¢ †¢ Note: 6 seconds. 12 seconds. The minimum delay to alarm is 3 seconds. However, with this setting, the detector requires that the alarm threshold level has been exceeded throughout for a minimum of 3 seconds in any given 5 second window. Therefore, for fires where the intensity varies, the time to alarm may be longer.Similarly, for the 6 second setting, the alarm threshold level must be maintained for a minimum of 6 seconds in any 8 second window and for the 12 s econd setting, the alarm threshold level must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds in any 14 second window. When the S241+ is operated in Continuously Variable Signalling mode, the delay to alarm switches on S1 are inoperative. This means that in windy conditions where the fire signal varies over time, the detection range will be reduced on the longer time to alarm settings.The signal is smoothed to reduce jitter and this results in a settling time of between 3s and 5s. Further delay could be added by the controller if required. 19 In the case of the S251+, there is additional delay to alarm introduced by the confirmation procedure of the Minerva control panel. This extra delay is between 4 and 6 seconds. For the S251+/S271f+ PRE-ALARM function, the delay to alarm settings on switch S1 are inoperative, the only delay is that introduced by the Minerva/MX panel. For the S271+, the delay may be set from MX CONSYS via the controller if all the switches are in the OFF position.SWITC H S1 (S271+ ONLY) SWITCH S2 (S251+ ONLY) SWITCH S1 SWITCH S2 (S271+ ONLY) ON S1 ON S1 ON S2 ON S2 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 8 INTERFACE PCB CONNECTOR BLOCKS RELAYS AND CONNECTOR BLOCK (S261+ ONLY) Fig. C-4 Switch Location 5. 7 SELF-TEST The detector normally carries out a complete self-test every 20 minutes. The self-test exercises the pyro-electric sensors, electronics and monitors the window for cleanliness. If the window cleanliness test fails on 20 successive occasions (6 hours 40 minutes), a fault condition is generated and the fault LED, where fitted, flashes at the rate of 0. 5Hz.In this condition, the window self-test only is automatically repeated every minute until the window clears and window self-test passes. If the window test continuously fails then the complete self-test will still be repeated every 20 minutes. Other self-test failures will be indicated on the first test after they have occurred. For the complete ‘self-tests’ to be run automatically, the ‘self- test’ connection on the terminal board must be left open circuit when the unit is powered up. In this mode, additional self-tests may be initiated remotely by connecting 0V to the ‘self-test’ terminal, refer to the wiring diagrams in Section D. 0 The detector may be powered up in such a condition that the window ‘self-test’ can only be initiated remotely on demand (the automatic window ‘self-test’ is disabled). In order for this to be achieved the detector must be powered up with the ‘self-test’ terminal connected to 0V (terminals 3 or 5). To initiate the test for the first time after power up, the connection to the ‘self-test’ terminal must be opened for at least 5 seconds and then closed again. This ‘self-test’ function (which takes 10 seconds) will commence within 2 seconds of the closing and the result of the test indicated for as long as the connection remains closed.If the test passes, an alar m condition will be indicated and if it fails a fault condition will be indicated. To remove the test indication, the connection to the ‘self-test’ terminal must be opened. A self-test fail indication due to a window fault will remain until a window ‘self-test’ is successful and will then unlatch after a 1 minute delay. The ‘self-test’ should not be repeated more frequently than every 20 seconds (to allow the ‘self-test’ circuitry to recharge) as erroneous results may occur. Note: that if a unit is poorly sited such that sunlight can reach the window test detector element, the receive amplifier may saturate.In this event, that particular test is aborted and if this situation persists for 6 hours 40 minutes, the unit will register a fault condition. CAUTION: A REMOTELY INITIATED TEST WILL PRODUCE AN ALARM SIGNAL FROM THE DETECTOR IF THE TEST SHOWS THAT THE WINDOW IS CLEAN. TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO INHIBIT A FULL ALARM CONDITION A T THE CONTROL PANEL BEFORE PROCEEDING. IF THE SELF-TEST CONNECTION IS NOT OPENED AFTER A SELF-TEST THE DETECTOR WILL REMAIN DISABLED. The window ‘self-test’ may be disabled by permanently connecting the ‘self-test’ terminal to 0V (pins 3 or 5) before power up.This may be desirable in those conditions in which contaminants may make the window appear dirty but which may not affect the ability of the detector to otherwise function normally. The detector may be reset by reducing the voltage to less than 2 volts for greater than 0. 5 seconds. A remote LED may be used with the detector except for the S251i+ and S271i+ when the detector is used through a shunt diode safety barrier or galvanic isolator. A ‘self-test’ may be initiated remotely from the controller for the S271+ (dependant on MX firmware version). 1 6. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 6. 1 GENERAL A large number of fire tests have been carried during the development phase of the S200+ Series d etectors to determine their response limits. The results of these tests are summarised below. In order to appreciate their significance, an understanding of the mode of the operation of the detector is necessary, and a brief explanation follows: 6. 2 MODE OF OPERATION – BEHAVIOUR IN FIRE TESTS Flaming fires involving carbonaceous materials produce large quantities of carbon dioxide.This part of the combustion process gives rise to a very high level of infra-red radiation in a narrow wavelength region centred upon 4. 3? m. The radiation from a fire flickers in a characteristic way and the detector uses this flicker signal in conjunction with the black body rejection technique described in Section A to discriminate between flame and non-flame signals. The level of the signal depends upon the size of the flame and its distance from the detector. For liquid fuels the signal level increases as the surface area of the burning liquid increases.For any type of fire the signal level g enerally varies inversely with the square of the distance. For convenience, fire tests are normally carried out using liquid fuels burning in pans of known area in still air. Note: The results of fire tests can be significantly affected by weather conditions prevailing at the time, eg, – wind. The sensitivity of a detector can then be conveniently expressed as the distance at which a particular fire size can be detected. While the S200+ will reject modulated signals from blackbody sources, the presence of such sources of high intensity may affect the sensitivity of the detectors.It is important to think in terms of distance rather than time because of the different burning characteristics of different fuels. Fig. C-5 shows the response to two different fuels which ultimately produce the same signal level. The signal level given by n-heptane quickly reaches its maximum and produces an alarm within about six seconds of ignition. Diesel, on the other hand, being less volatile, t akes about a minute to reach equilibrium and an alarm is given in about 60 seconds from ignition. Note: 22If a fire test is carried out using non-miscible fuels then it is strongly recommended that water be placed in the bottom of the pan to keep it cool and prevent it deforming. A sufficient amount of fuel must be placed in the pan to ensure combustion occurs over all of its area throughout the intended duration of the test. 2 a) 0. 1m N-HEPTANE PAN FIRE b) 0. 1m 2 DIESEL PAN FIRE c) 0. 1m 2 METHANOL/ETHANOL PAN FIRE a) c) ENERGY FROM FIRES a) and c) at 25m FIRE b) AT 15m ENERGY b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TIME SECONDS Fig. C-5 Burn Characteristics of Pan FiresThe time taken by the fire to reach equilibrium depends on the initial temperature of the fuel. If diesel were to be pre-heated to a temperature above its flash point then its behaviour would be more like that of n-heptane at 25oC. The test data presented below refers to fires which have reached their equilibrium condition. 6. 3 F IRE TEST DATA The S200+ range has been tested by LPCB to BS EN 54 Part 10 : 2002 and classified as a Class 1 flame detector on the 50m and 25m range settings. The S200+ is certified as Class 3 on the 12m range setting. 6. 3. 1 N-HEPTANEThe most convenient fuel for fire tests is n-heptane since it is readily available and quickly reaches its equilibrium burning rate. The range figures specified in Para 5. 5 relate to a n-heptane fire in a 0. 1m2 pan on the main axis of the detector field of view. 6. 3. 2 OTHER LIQUID HYDROCARBONS Typical ranges achieved with other fuels burning on 0. 1m2 pans, relative to that for n-heptane, are as follows: Alcohol (Ethanol, Meths) Petrol 100%* 95% Paraffin, Kerosene, JP4 70%** Diesel fuel 52% * Test performed using meths in a 0. 25m2 pan. ** Test performed using paraffin.The detection range is also a function of pan area. Field trials using n-Heptane fires indicate that the detection range increases by approximately 20% when the pan area is doubled. 23 Note: 6. 3. 3 When testing at the limits of the detectors range, the delay in response will vary due to the ambient conditions and may be significantly longer than the minimum response times, as described in 5. 6. GAS FLAMES The S200+ will not detect a hydrogen fire as it does not contain carbon. The S200+ will detect gas fires from inflammable gases containing carbon and hydrogen providing its flame produces flame modulation in the 1 to 15Hz ange. Fires burning a premixed air/gas mixture may be difficult to detect as they may produce little modulation. Tests show that an S200+ detector set to the 50m range will typically detect a 0. 8m high and 0. 2 sqm area methane/natural gas flame (venting from an 8mm diameter gas vent at 0. 5Bar (7. 5lbs/sq in) as below: Range 6. 3. 4 30m 40m 50m Time to Respond 3 seconds 6 seconds 15 seconds DIRECTIONAL SENSITIVITY WARNING: WHEN MOUNTING THE FLAMEPROOF VERSIONS OF THE S200+ DETECTORS, ENSURE THAT THE PARTS OF THE FLAMEPROOF GUARD INDICATED IN FIG.C-6 ARE NOT DIRECTED AT THE RISK AREA BEING PROTECTED, AS THE FIELD OF VIEW IS RESTRICTED. MIRROR COVER DO NOT MOUNT THE FLAMEPROOF VERSION OF THE S200+ DETECTOR WITH THIS PART OF THE GUARD (WINDOW PROTECTOR) DIRECTED AT THE RISK AREA BEING PROTECTED. RESTRICTED FIELD OF VIEW DUE TO WINDOW GUARD METAL PROTRUSION 24 Fig. C-6 The sensitivity of the S200+ is at a maximum on the detector axis. The variation of range with angle of incidence is shown in (Polar Diagrams) Figs. C-7 and C-8 for open air tests using 0. 1m2 pan fires with the detector operating at normal range. 90 80 DETECTOR o PLAN VIEW 90 o

4th Gospel Revision Notes

Ethics EITHER 3 (a) (i) Examine the key ideas of one critique of the link between religion and morality. (18) (ii) To what extent does this critique effectively undermine the link between religion and morality? (12) (Total for Question 3(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Analyse the important features of either Deontology or Natural Moral Law. (18) (ii) To what extent is the selected theory persuasive? (12) (Total for Question 3(b) = 30 marks) EITHER 4 (a) (i) Examine the important concepts relating to justice and law and punishment. (18) (ii) Consider critically the extent to which subjectivism poses problems for these concepts. 12) (Total for Question 4(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Analyse the contribution made by emotivism to debates about ethical language. (18) (ii) To what extent do the problems of ethical language remain unsolved? (12) (Total for Question 4(b) = 30 marks) New Testament EITHER 17 (a) (i) Examine the religious significance of either the teachings of Jesus concerning the Kin gdom of God (Luke’s Gospel) or the teaching of the Prologue (Fourth Gospel). (18) (ii) To what extent are these teachings important for an understanding of the gospel? (12) (Total for Question 17(a) = 30 marks)OR (b) (i) ‘The gospel was written to reveal the nature of Jesus as the Christ. ’ Examine this claim regarding the purpose of either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel. (18) (ii) To what extent may other purposes for the gospel be equally important? (12) (Total for Question 17(b) = 30 marks) EITHER 18 (a) (i) With reference to either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel, examine the reasons why the religious and political authorities put Jesus to death. (18) (ii) To what extent was Pilate responsible for the death of Jesus? (12) (Total for Question 18(a) = 30 marks) OR b) (i) Examine the significance of the religious symbolism contained within the crucifixion narrative of either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel. (18) (ii) To what extent does the resurrection narrative add to an understanding of the rest of the gospel? (12) (Total for Question 18(b) = 30 marks) Ethics EITHER 3 (a) (i) Analyse the important features of either Deontology or Virtue Ethics. (18) (ii) Consider critically how effective the selected theory may be as a guideline for moral living. (12) (Total for Question 3(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Examine the key ideas of Natural Moral Law. 18) (ii) To what extent do critiques of the link between religion and morality undermine the value of Natural Moral Law? (12) (Total for Question 3(b) = 30 marks) EITHER 4 (a) (i) Examine key ideas associated with either justice or law and punishment. (18) (ii) Evaluate the view that objectivity and relativism pose problems for the concept selected in part (i). (12) (Total for Question 4(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Examine the problems which scholars have identified regarding the use and meaning of ethical language. (18) (ii) To what extent may these problems be solved? 12) (Total for Question 4(b) = 30 marks) New Testament EITHER 17 (a) (i) Either examine the important features of Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God or examine the key ideas of the Prologue (Fourth Gospel). (18) (ii) Evaluate the claim that this teaching/these ideas are crucial to the meaning of the gospel. (12) (Total for Question 17(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) ‘A careful reading of the gospel reveals the purpose the author had for writing it. ’ Examine this claim with reference to either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel. 18) (ii) Evaluate the view that knowing the purpose of the gospel does not add to our understanding of its meaning. (12) (Total for Question 17(b) = 30 marks) EITHER 18 (a) (i) ‘It was the religious officials who were responsible for Jesus’ death; the political authorities had nothing to do with it. ’ Examine this claim with reference to either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel . (18) (ii) Evaluate the view that conflict was crucial to the ministry of Jesus. (12) (Total for Question 18(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Analyse three examples of religious symbolism in the crucifixion narrative of either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel. 18) (ii) Evaluate the claim that the resurrection adds little to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus. (12) (Total for Question 18(b) = 30 marks) Ethics EITHER 3 (a) (i) Examine the important concepts of two critiques of the link between religion and morality (18) (ii) To what extent do these critiques succeed in weakening the link between religion and morality? (12) (Total for Question 3(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Analyse the key features of either Natural Moral Law or Virtue Ethics. (18) (ii) Evaluate the extent to which the selected theory can withstand criticism. (12) (Total for Question 3(b) = 30 marks)EITHER 4 (a) (i) Examine central ideas relating to justice and law and punishment. (18) (ii) To what extent does objectivity pose challenges for imposing punishment? (12) (Total for Question 4(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) Analyse two problems raised by the use and meaning of ethical language. (18) (ii) Evaluate the view that these problems cannot be solved. (12) (Total for Question 4(b) = 30 marks) New Testament EITHER 17 (a) (i) Examine the key religious concepts of either the teachings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God (Luke’s Gospel) or the teaching of the Prologue (Fourth Gospel). 18) (ii) Evaluate the claim that these teachings lay down the primary themes of the gospel. (12) (Total for Question 17(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) ‘The Gospel was written to make clear the identity of Jesus. ’ Examine this claim regarding the purpose of either Luke’s Gospel or the Fourth Gospel. (18) (ii) Evaluate the claim that there are also other important purposes for the gospel. (12) (Total for Question 17(b) = 30 marks) EITHER 18 (a) (i) With reference to either Luke’s Gos pel or the Fourth Gospel, examine the [pic][? ] |&'(*,. /@AGJKY[^_pqrs†¹ Zâ€Å" ¤?  ¬iaiaiaiaiaiOAa ·a ·?  ·aâ„ ¢? A†¦? {†¦A{A{A{†¦g†¦? u†°OJ[? ]QJ[? ]U[pic]^J[? ]mHnHu[pic]h? †ºOJ[? ]QJ[? ]contribution of both the religious and political authorities to the death of Jesus. (18) (ii) Consider critically the claim that it was Pilate who was responsible for the death of Jesus, not the Jewish leaders. (12) (Total for Question 18(a) = 30 marks) OR (b) (i) ‘The religious symbolism of the crucifixion narrative is vital to understanding the whole gospel. ’ Examine the meaning of this claim. (18) (ii) To what extent does the resurrection narrative enhance that understanding? (12) (Total for Question 18(b) = 30 marks)

Research and analyse Google company Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Research and analyse Google company - Essay Example Beyond the founders, Google has diverse stakeholders. The stakeholders influence the decisions of the organization significantly. Stakeholders of the organization experience a set of positive and negative ramifications in their positions (Morrow, 2013). Therefore, the stakeholders have both benefits and challenges posed by the organization. Stakeholders of this organization entail users, investors, and employees (Morrow, 2013). These are the key stakeholders of the Google organization. Users are key stakeholders in Google. Google has a huge amount of users due to its diversity of services. The company provides diverse programs, tools, and information for the benefit of users (Morrow, 2013). In this case, the diversity expands the number of users in the company. This organization records a huge number of users that exceeds a total of a billion. Google has a set of positive effects towards the users. Each user benefits significantly from the information disseminated by Google (Morrow, 2013). The advertisements, research, and scholarly details facilitate the knowledge and awareness of each user. Programs and tools in Google enhance the technological expertise of the users (Morrow, 2013). The programs and tools also enhance convenience of communication amongst the users (Morrow, 2013). Evidently, Google users have maximum benefit from the company’s provisions. ... Investors are also key stakeholders of Google (Morrow, 2013). The company has outstanding benefits towards the investors. In the past year, the company raised an total of 14.4billion in its revenue (Morrow, 2013). This is a 36% growth of the company, after the culmination of the previous year. Definitely, investors benefit from the massive financial rewards from the company. However, investors cannot predict the progress of the organization due to the rampant social change that initiates shifts in users’ preferences (Morrow, 2013). Competition is already emerging from companies that offer the same services as Google. Nevertheless, Google is kept secure as it records an aggregate of 86% of satisfied customers in the modern society (Morrow, 2013). Employees are key stakeholders in Google (Morrow, 2013). They influence decision making in the organization (Morrow, 2013). Employees in Google benefit from the company’s capability to reward and motivate them. Google offers inc entives that motivate the loyalty of the workforce (Morrow, 2013). Each employee in Google is motivated to serve the organization. Despite this fact, employees in Google have been resigning rampantly (Morrow, 2013). The past year resignations are attributed to extreme bureaucracy within the organization. Therefore, Google employees are negatively affected by bureaucracy (Morrow, 2013). Evidently, every stakeholder in Google experiences a set of benefits and challenges simultaneously. Google is a major organization in the globe. â€Å"Its operations in the USA entail massive usage of electricity† (Whelan, 2008). Therefore, Google consumes an immense proportion of that aggregate electricity in the USA. This organization has been in operation for

Doll Barbie as a Threat to the Intrinsic Culture of Iran Case Study - 1

Doll Barbie as a Threat to the Intrinsic Culture of Iran - Case Study Example The boyfriend culture and alcohol are too inconsistent with the Islamic culture of Iran. Owing to these facts, the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults shaped the doll Sara to knock the Barbie off the shelves in Iranian markets. Sara’s complexion is darker than Barbie and her hair is black. She appears in the traditional Iranian chador that is long enough to touch the floor. Instead of a boyfriend, the Institute designed Dara, who holds the status of Sara’s brother. He wears a turban on the head and a coat. Since thirty years from now when the Islamic Revolution occurred in Iran, Iran has become sensitive about the way West has conventionally influenced other cultures through its products. Accordingly, Iran ceased a Coca-Cola factory that was known to promote American culture in Iran, though not all Iranians condemn Barbie. There are owners of toy stores in Iran who consider Barbie as a means of business that has got nothing to do with cul ture. And there is a moderate community among Iranians that do not like the government’s idea of prohibiting things in the name of culture. Barbie is still popular in Iran and its massive smuggling into Iran stays as an evidence for that. Barbie has been liked a lot in the Arab world, though the Arab League designed the doll Leila in order to make the Arab girls proud of their indigenous culture. Leila was a ten years old doll, the color of whose hair and eyes were black. She wore both Western and traditional Arabic dresses. Leila’s price was $10, which was much less than that of Barbie. However, Leila could not be launched. For Muslim Americans, a Michigan based manufacturer produced the doll Razanne. Razanne promotes the message that the inside of humans matters instead of the way they look. Razanne is preteen and is of three kinds; the blonde fair Razanne, the black haired and olive skinned Razanne, and the black haired and black skinned Razanne.  

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE B PLAYERS - ARTICLE REVIEW

LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE B PLAYERS - REVIEW - Article Example This group does not outshine everyone in the company’s line of duty but packs tremendous knowledge, experience, and ability for saving a company’s future from crises and other performance-based issues. The B Players are not made and neither can they be destroyed. These Players exist in three levels: former A Players, Truth Tellers, and Go-to-Managers. As former A Players, these have the experience and toughness to outshine all the players within the company but they choose to move from the spotlight. As truth tellers, they identify the number of issues that face the company and project it to the authorities capable of strategizing factors to pull the company from financial or performance deficits. As Go-to-Manages, B Players are faced with consultation duties related to the company’s operations and norms. When a company finds itself in performance or financial turmoil, the B Players structure the entity for consultation as their knowledge and experience with comp any process makes them an asset to the company. Managers are provided with a manual-style approach on how to nurture B Players. In a company, most employees are faced with the urge to become top players but their ambitions may pay off or fail, therefore, breaking their morale. However, for B Players, management is urged to accept differences, give the gift of time, hand out the prizes, and give choices. Data Analysis and Opinion: Different players within a company have different goals and mission about their careers and purposes at the company. The business world functions on a 24/7 basis and incorporates players with varying ambitions. A Players are more concerned on how to work their way to the top – their mission is to find out what is good for ‘brand me’. B Players on the other hand, focus their potential for what is good for the company. With this variance, it has been noted that, companies do not, in most cases recognize the efforts or the role of B Players . For example, a company will always give incentives and bonuses to those employees that perform beyond the expectations of many. This is the reason some companies have the employee-of-the-year awards. This awarding system is a way of recognizing talent or skill but also a way of isolating other important players within the company. In this case, if it were the will of every employee to work towards nourishing individual talent and skills, companies would have no one concerned about their long term performances. Various people work for varying reasons; some work to be promoted, some need good pay, and others need to be managers. However, when it comes to the myth that everyone is equal or similar to the other, a line is drawn. Leaders within a company always assume that all people want the same things – money, power, and status – out of their organizations. However, evidence shows that some people are more focused on influencing others in their jobs. For those not worr ied about individual performance or excellence are considered B players – their duty is to influence change on a company-wide scope. However, while this is the fact, management in different companies tends to overlook the importance and purpose of being a B Player. B Players are not different from A Players because they possess the same or even higher level of intelligence. Achievement has been identified as a blend of personality, intelligence, and

Britains Role In 20th Century International History Essay

Britains Role In 20th Century International History - Essay Example The Australian colonies were united into an autonomous Dominion in 1901 with the federal government located at Melbourne before being moved to Canberra in 1927. New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907. All four South African colonies were federated into autonomous Dominion Union of South Africa in 1910 (Reynolds 127). The granting of autonomy to the Irish Free State reduced the territory of the United Kingdom to Great Britain in 1921. It can be argued that the British Empire was at its peak in the 1920s after World War One when it Gained most of the German territories in Africa and Ottoman provinces including Palestine and Iraq in the Middle East by mandate granted by the League of Nations (Reynolds 127).At the Balfour Declaration in 1926, Britain and its Dominions agreed that they were not subordinate to each other another in aspects of both domestic and external affairs though united by common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Common Wealth Of Na tions. They were also granted the right to secede (Reynolds 127). World War Two (1939-45) demonstrated the royalty of the Dominions to the empire as in 1939 the Australian prime minister acknowledged his country’s involvement in war by virtue of Britain’s declaration of war on Germany and as a result, Australia was at war, again in 1940 gold in millions of pounds was shipped to Canada in preparation for relocation of the British Royal Family if the situation of war escalated (Reynolds 127).... New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907. All four South African colonies were federated into autonomous Dominion of Union of South Africa in 1910 (Reynolds 127). The granting of autonomy to the Irish Free State reduced the territory of the United Kingdom to Great Britain in 1921. It can be argued that the British Empire was at its peak in the 1920s after World War One when it gained most of German territories in Africa and Ottoman provinces including Palestine and Iraq in the Middle East by mandate granted by the League of Nations (Reynolds 127). At the Balfour Declaration in 1926, Britain and its Dominions agreed that they were not subordinate to each other another in aspects of both domestic and external affairs though united by common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Common Wealth Of Nations. The Statute of West Minister in 1931 granted full autonomy to The Dominions of Canada, union of South Africa, Irish Free states Australia and New Zealand they were collectively referred to as the British common wealth. They were also granted the right to secede (Reynolds 127). World War Two (1939-45) demonstrated the royalty of the Dominions to the empire as in 1939 the Australian prime minister acknowledged his country’s involvement in war by virtue of Britain’s declaration of war on Germany and as a result, Australia was at war, again in 1940 gold in millions of pounds was shipped to Canada in preparation for relocation of the British Royal Family if the situation of war escalated (Reynolds 127). The empire was to further expand in 1945 after the war, occupying most of Italian territories in Africa and huge areas of the Middle East to secure

Application of DECISION MAKING tools to MORTGAGE Industry Professional Coursework

Application of DECISION MAKING tools to MORTGAGE Industry Professional Experience - Coursework Example In making critical decisions, the people who are in positions of leadership often run into conclusions without inquiring well from professionals who can avert the damage that can be caused by such an occurrence. A good example is the doomed merger between AOL and Time Warner in the year 2001. The merger happened despite the advice of the subordinates on Gerald Levin who was at the time the Chief Executive Officer at Time Warner Inc. Levin who was obsessed with leaving a legacy at Time Warner Inc. decided to go ahead and authorize the merger despite the warnings. This is a good example of the consequences that can follow the making of irrational decisions. In this work, we shall look at the decision making models that have been developed to help in making the best decisions especially in our field. This will be addressed in the context of the mortgage industry which is our section of interest. By first comparing them we shall be able to figure out the best and discuss it. There are a number of decision making models that can be used in the mortgage and loan financing industry. First it is important to understand this field so as to see how the idea of using decision models and techniques can be implemented. First, the mortgage loans are availed to the people who want to try their hand in real estate so they can be able to purchase the property they want. In the legal mechanism that need to be followed to validate this process, the property stands as the security in case the borrower is unable to pay back the loan (Gaffney, 2014). This is a business that has been so successful in the recent past and thriving in it requires a bit of critical decision making. The amount of cash that is required to establish it means that there is no space left for gambling and every step made counts. Company A has wants to form a merger with Company

Negotiations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Negotiations - Essay Example This was the case of a miner who lost his boots at work, and the managers did not agree to lend him a pair or even buy him a new pair. The non-compliance by the shift boss led to a dispute of interests and led the employee to go on strike. Ury, et.al, (1988) explain that a dispute starts when a claim or demand is made and is generally based on a need or aspiration. In the case where the miner complained of the lost boots, he was in directly expecting the company to take responsibility and to remedy the issue, however due to the rejection, this led to a dispute (Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1988). Here this led to a conflict of interests, i.e. the interest of the miner was to get back his pair of boots, while the interest of the shift boss was not to spend extra as the company cannot be held liable for the loss of property. Interests are the needs, desires, concerns, and fears, basically, the things that an individual cares about or wants. Reconciliation of such interests is the key and is the most concerning aspect of any negotiation. Here these can lead to creative solutions, or making trade- offs, or even concessions. The crux is to reach to an agreement. However, not all the negotiations are a means to reach an agreement. Some negotiations are focused on reconciling of interests, while others on determining who is right and a few others are based on who is more powerful (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). However, there are a number of negotiations which is a mix of all three of the elements, i.e. to satisfy the interests, discussion of rights and also focus on the power of the parties involved. In the case that the negotiations are focused on a single aspect, then they are referred to as, either, ‘interest-based’, ‘rights-based’, or ‘power-based’ (Lewicki, Saunders, Minton, & Barry, 2010). The relationship of the three can be understood better in the form of concurrent circles, with the inner most circle being interest, the outer circle being rights and the outer most circle being power (see figure below). (Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1988) The diagram clearly explains that any reconciliation of interests is basically within the rights and power of the parties. Similarly, the determination of the rights is based on the levels of power. The three are interrelated and the overall resolution of a dispute can have a continuous shift between the interests, rights or power (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). Each of the three has a different impact on the overall costs, satisfaction and also the outcomes. There are four possible criteria in every negotiation. a) The transaction costs, i.e. the cost of the overall negotiation. In the case of the Boots dispute, it would have been better for the shift boss to resolve the dispute without the strike. The escalated issue of strike, simply led the overall costs to increase to a great extent (Brett, 2007). b) Outcome satisfaction is another crucial element that needs t o be considered. Here the outcome was not to satisfaction for the business, or the employee alike. The business was faced with loss of money, while the employee did not receive a new pair of boots. However the employee was satisfied as this allowed him to vent out the anger. c) Impact on relationships, is the next crucial criteria. Negotiations are a part of day to day life (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). With the type of negotiation chosen, there can be an impact on the ove