text:
US History/Supreme Court Cases

The reader may find this section a bit different than the other sections of this book.

Introducing the Constitutional Structure of the United States
The United States is a country ruled by an association representative of, elected by, and accountable to, the people of the United States (as opposed to being ruled by a king or a dictator--in essence, a country ruled by those possessing superior capability for violence compared to anyone else); this makes the United States a "democracy", a country ruled by the people.

The association of the people of the United States - the government of the United States - is ruled by a set of previously declared principles applied in a uniform, consistent, and fair fashion to every situation the government of the United States finds itself in; these principles, and their application, are called "law"; this makes the United States a country that is ruled by law, or has the "rule of law".

But who rules the law? The law rules the law; the system of laws of the United States has certain laws that are more important than others. The highest law of the United States, the "supreme law of the land", is called the "Constitution of the United States of America"; it is a set of laws that govern laws and govern the government. It specifies what kind of laws can be made, and what the government can do. It prohibits certain types of laws from being made, and specifically forbids the government from doing certain things. And it places fundamental limits on the power of government, by specifying that every power that is not specifically granted (or specifically implied) to the government in the Constitution, the government does not possess, may not exercise, and cannot claim to have. This makes the United States a country that has a "limited government"--there are things that the government of the United States cannot do, like throw people in jail for no reason, name one religion as the only religion allowed, send the police to search homes without evidence of crimes being committed, or punish people because they say things that other people disagree with. The reader should understand that the government of the United States does not do these things not because it chooses not to do them--but because it has no power to do them.

But who rules the Constitution? The individual people of the United States do. They can change it, if it becomes necessary. It has been changed 27 times in the past two-hundred-and-twenty or so years. But the process to do so is slow, and arduous, and most people hesitate to change what has worked so well for so long, especially for light causes.

The Constitution In Practice
A word about the Constitution: it was written before the Internet, the computer, the television, nuclear power, radio, the airplane, the automobile, electricity and electric lighting, the train, or in-home running water--before 37 of the 50 current states were part of the United States--before there were any other democracies on the face of the Earth--before there were large cities in our country--and before there were industries, or corporations, or any of the other modern conveniences of life. It was written by candlelight, not by electric light, it was delivered to the 13 states by riders on horseback, not by posting it on the Web. But it was not written before there was what many Americans believe to be God, or before there was a notion that all people are equal, and have the right to be free. Many view the Constitution as a set of truths that apply themselves in similar ways in changing times.

Therefore, the Constitution can sometimes be unclear, and be subject to changing situations. In those situations, there are people who interpret the Constitution and the law of the United States; they are called judges; and the supreme interpreters of the Constitution are called Justices; there are nine of them, and together they form the Supreme Court of the United States. They decide what the Constitution means to us when a situation presents itself where the Constitution is unclear. These decisions are made when one person argues that what another person is doing (or not doing) is forbidden by the Constitution. That is why they have names like "Marbury v. Madison"; Marbury, a person, complained against Madison, a person.

When the Justices of the Supreme Court make decisions in the present, they look to their past decisions (what they call "precedents") for guidance. This is an important part of the law, because the law must be consistent. Sometimes, however, they find their past decisions to be wrong--or inapplicable--and revise them. Sometimes they are upheld, or expanded upon. In any event, there are times when Supreme Court decisions play a very, very major role in the history of the United States.

In the following sections, we name the most major decisions of the Supreme Court and discuss why they occurred, what was decided, and why the decision was important. These decisions--these interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States--form an important part of the history of the United States, as the United States is a nation ruled by law.

First Constitutional Era (1787-1850)
The Union, its nature, judicial supremacy, rule of law, states' rights, federal powers and the limits thereof, allotment and allocation of powers between the several branches, the several states, and the people thereof, the question of slavery.

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The day before his last in office, President John Adams appointed 42 judges to fill seats in many newly-created courts. One of these was William Marbury. The Senate confirmed the judges, and Secretary of State John Marshall signed their commissions, the paper each requires to assume his appointment. But the day Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he ordered his appointed Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions to many of the confirmed judges, Marbury included. Marbury sued to force Madison to give up the commissions. The suit was filed directly in the Supreme Court, since Marbury argued that the Judiciary Act 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, court orders that force public officials to do things.

John Marshall, who incidentally was appointed to the position of Chief Justice on Adams' last day, wrote in the court's unanimous decision that the Court could not rule in Marbury's case because it did not have the jurisdiction to do so. Marbury had argued that Article III of the Constitution only set basic rules concerning the Supreme Court's powers, and that they could be expanded by Congress any time it wanted. Marshall disagreed, pointing to the simple logic: what was the point of having a Constitution if Congress could write laws that changed courts' jurisdictions, thus ignoring the rules explicitly stated in Article III? If laws could be written that circumvented Article III in the way that Marbury argued that the Judiciary Act should, could laws be written that allowed the courts to ignore the Constitution altogether?

In determining that the Judiciary Act was in violation of the Constitution by adding on to Article III, Marshall affirmed the all-important principle of judicial review. Judicial review is the judicial branch's, and specifically the Supreme Court's, power to declare laws in conflict with the Constitution and overturn them.

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
Fletcher v. Peck was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. In the course of the westward push for the control of Indian lands, the state of Georgia took from the Indians a 35,000,000-acre (140,000 sq. km) region in the Yazoo River area known as the Yazoo Lands. This land later became the states of Alabama and Mississippi. In 1795, the Georgia legislature divided the area into four tracts. The state then sold the tracts to four separate land development companies for a modest total price of $500,000, i.e. about 1.4 cents per acre, a good deal even at 1790s prices. The Georgia legislature overwhelmingly approved this land grant, known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795.

It was revealed that the Yazoo Land Act sale to private speculators had been approved in return for bribes. Voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election, and the next legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided transactions made under it.

John Peck had purchased land that had previously been sold under the 1795 act. Peck sold this land to Robert Fletcher and in 1803, Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. The case reached the Supreme Court, which in a unanimous decision ruled that the state legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. The opinion, written by John Marshall, argued that the sale was a binding contract, which according to Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution cannot be invalidated, even if illegally secured. Today the ruling further protects property rights against popular pressures, and is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws conflicting with the Constitution.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S 304 (1816)
During the Revolutionary War, Virginia passed legislation allowing it to take Loyalists' property. The United States signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 with Britain; it included a clause that stated that the federal government would tell the states to give back the Loyalists' property. A Loyalist named Denny Martin sued in Virginia's state court system on the grounds that Loyalists were to get their properties back in accordance with the treaty.

The case eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld the confiscation on the grounds that the court's interpretation of the treaty was that it did not cover the case. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided that the treaty did apply to the case and remanded it back to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court decided that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over cases originating in state courts, and the decision was appealed back to the Supreme Court. Once again, the Supreme Court overturned the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling, arguing that the case involved federal law. The Court's decision was very important because it affirmed that it had supreme power over all courts in regards to federal law and the Constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
This case was a very important test of States' Rights against the power of the federal government. Many states continued to oppose the Bank of the United States after it was reinstated in 1816, mostly because it called for its loans to be owed by the states. In retaliation to this policy, Maryland passed a tax on the bank, which the bank refused to pay. Maryland soon filed suit against James McCulloch, the head of the Baltimore branch of the bank.

The Court's unanimous opinion established two extremely important principles. The first was that, yes, Congress could create the Bank under the doctrine of implied powers. The Constitution specifically lists that Congress has the power to borrow money and regulate commerce (among others), and it can be implied that Congress had the power to create the Bank. The second point that the Court made was that Maryland's tax was unconstitutional because it was in conflict with the Supremacy Clause, which says that states can never willingly impede the federal government. The court reasoned that taxing, if other states decided to adopt Maryland's policy, had the potential to destroy the bank, and thus impede the federal government's efforts to regulate the economy.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
The Dartmouth College Case was a reiteration of the judicial principle of pacta sunt servanda ("contracts are to be held"). Dartmouth College was established per a colonial charter in 1769, by King George III. In 1815, the legislature of New Hampshire attempted to change the charter of the College in such a way that the governor would be able to appoint a new president of the College, as well as appoint new members of the Board of Trustees and to create a state board to supervise the school, effectively trying to change the college from private to public institution. The court ruled that the old charter was still valid per the Contract Clause of the Constitution (also cited in Fletcher v. Peck). Essentially, the ruling was that a charter was also a contract, and the state legislature had no right to convert the private institution to a public institution as long as the old charter was in power.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.

The Constitution In Crisis and Decision (1850-1871)
The Union; its fundamental nature and character; the nature and character of states, and sovereignty; the meaning of citizenship; the extraordinary powers of the President; the war powers; the customs, usages, rules, and articles of war; the Great Writ, and its application in times of crisis; the formal ratification of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the formal repudiation of the Calhounian counterrevolutionary ideology of oligarchic slave power despotic tyranny.

This section will depart from the normal style, as there are important changes that were made in the Constitution and Constitutional interpretation through means other than judicial interpretation, such as by means of amendment, or by right of the victor.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Dred Scott was perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court decision in all of U.S. history, quite possibly was a major cause of the U.S. Civil War, and is generally regarded by most U.S. historians, scholars, and lawyers as a moment of supreme infamy, when the U.S. unquestionably knew sin.

Dred Scott was an African-American slave who originally lived in Missouri, and was taken to Illinois, a free state, by his master. Scott sued for freedom, as he was in a free state. The case worked its way through the courts, until it reached the Supreme Court. Although the case could have been dismissed for technical reasons, Chief Justice Roger Taney decided to attempt to resolve the slavery issue in the United States once and for all, by imposing his personal opinion (his personal opinion as a slaver) upon his fellow citizens. Taney declared, simply, that African-Americans were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution, and had no rights except for what "those who held the power...might choose to grant them", and thus, not being citizens, in Taney's opinion Taney's personal view on the potential citizenship of free African-Americans was markedly inconsistent with the expressed opinion of the Framers of the Constitution. During the time when the Framers yet lived, there existed a question as to whether the territory of Missouri was to be admitted into the Union. As is written in Elson, Henry Wm. History of the United States of America (1905), p. 460-461: "When the people of Missouri adopted a constitution, they inserted a clause making it the duty of the legislature to exclude free Negroes and mulattoes from the commonwealth. This brought on another great debate in Congress. The objection to this clause was based on the ground that the Constitution guarantees to the citizens of any state all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states. The two houses again failed to agree, and again the decision was made through a joint committee. Henry Clay was the mover and the chairman of this committee, and from this fact he became known as the author of the Missouri Compromise... This committee reported a bill to admit Missouri on an equal footing with the original states, on the condition that its constitution should never be construed so as to authorize any law by which a citizen of any other state should be excluded from the privileges which he enjoyed in other parts of the Union; and that the legislature of Missouri should pass a solemn act declaring its consent to this condition." This suggests that the Missouri Compromise - made while Adams, Madison, and Jefferson still lived - very strongly implied that free African Americans were, in fact, citizens of the United States. (However, the 14th Amendment (in theory), the Civil War, and the later Civil Rights Movement (in fact), settled the question, for all time.), had no standing to sue. He dismissed the case.

The most infamous passage of Scott is as follows:

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

It took a civil war and 700,000 dead U.S. citizens, both black and white, to obliterate the stain of Scott from the Constitution with the blood of patriots and tyrants, to end slavery once and for all, but it was done.

Ex parte Merryman, (1861)
TBD

Merryman was not decided by the Supreme Court, but is included for purposes of clarity, as it involves the extraordinary powers of the Presidency.

The United States, as it was in 1860, was a vast, sparsely populated, primarily agricultural nation. She was not a Great Power, for the Great Powers of the day were European principalities, kingdoms, and empires who did the world's business at the Docklands of London, the harbors of Amsterdam, and the Palaces of Versailles, The Hague, and Vienna. She was a minor power who kept to herself and was looked upon by the philosophers and thinkers of the time as a minor experiment in popular rule which was not bearing major fruit; to the princes of Europe, the United States was a convenient place to exile their radicals to who were calling for elected governments or civil liberty. In the words of certain Europeans, the United States had "gone from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilization". Washington, D.C. was viewed as a semi-tropical backwater of minor import; for many European diplomats used to soirees in the imperial courts of France and Prussia, or grand balls in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, it was a post worthy of substantial hardship pay.

Many of the Far Western states (the Great Plains States and the Rocky Mountain States) were not States at that time, and those regions were mostly unsettled, with the land owned by the Government, but the Government unable to disburse of it at the time in a manner perceived as fair. The Pacific Coast States were settled, but only moderately, and had low levels of industry and moderate levels of agriculture prior to the construction of the Transcontinental Railroads (the completion dates of those being the Union Pacific in 1873; the Southern Pacific in 1882; and the Great Northern in 1891). In the Eastern States, the United States had a moderate population level in the Old Northwest, along with mining, industry, and agriculture; a comparatively high population level in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast, where the industry and trade of the nation was concentrated; and a moderate to high population level and large scale agriculture in the Old South. Transportation links in the North, which consisted of the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic and the Old Northwest (what we now call the Upper Midwest - beyond the Appalachians to the Mississippi River) were rather developed, to meet the needs of commerce and industry, and the railroads provided transportation from one city to another in the North within the travel of 2-3 days. The South's rail systems were underdeveloped, and transit there was often an extended affair. To the Far Western states, transit would have to be either by steamer or overland; either mode of transit was not particularly fast. It could take a month - or more - for a person to get from one side of the United States to the other. Information did travel much faster than that - the Transcontinental Telegraph permitted the news of the East to reach the West within minutes, while the Pony Express served such purposes prior to that point, with round-trip mail times of days.

The reason for this being important to this case is that the Congress of the United States did not, like it does today, meet during all the year. The Congress was but a part-time legislature; the laws were few and simple, the business of the time was of import but not of great urgency, and following their session, the Congress dissolved and returned to the states and districts, the log cabins, the small farms, the cities, and the plantations from whence they came.

Following the election of the Northerner Abraham Lincoln as President, an insurrection had broke out in certain areas of the United States, as the slave-power of the South was desirous of subduing the anti-slavery North once and for all by fire and the sword, or at the very least, breaking free of the "oppressive" Federal rule so she could once again traffic in the human flesh of the African coast and build a slave empire extending even to Cuba and Mexico, as contemplated by the then dead John Calhoun, chief of the slave-power faction in the Congress at one time. This insurrection had turned into a rebellion, forming an alleged government; South Carolina, a hot-bed of slaving conspiracy where there were more African-Americans in bondage than there were people of any race, had seceded from the Union first, and was followed by the states of the Deep South where the Slave Power was the strongest. The less degenerate slave states of Virginia and Tennessee only saw treason openly fomented in their legislatures at first, and they did not break from the Union yet... Prior to attempts to peacefully settle the crisis, the South Carolinian fire-eaters fired the first shot of the coming war at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the property of the Federal Union, and with those shots, the war came, the War Between the States, The War of Southern Aggression, The War of Northern Aggression, or as it is known by later times, the U.S. Civil War.

Following the assault on Fort Sumter, the Upper South joined itself to the rebellion, and even Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, only lightly scarred by the lash of the slaver, were rumored to be beset by internal commotion by slavers and slave-power sympathizers who sought to secede from the Federal Union and deliver those states into the hands of the so-called Confederacy.

During the first six or seven months of 1861, the Congress was not assembled in Washington D.C., and it could not be returned into session, because its members were scattered around the nation, word of the emergency traveled slowly, and people traveled like molasses, if they traveled at all.

During the first year of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln

Compare and contrast with the more moderate opinion of the Court in Youngstown.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
Case involving Confederate sympathizers subjected to (sham) trial by "military commission" based on order of the so-called unitary executive. Supreme Court ruled that use military commissions or any form of attenuated due process had to be based on military necessity, and proximate in time and space to the actual zone of military operations.

Second Constitutional Era (1871-1938)
Substantive due process, "corporate personhood", "separate but equal", "freedom of contract", monopolies, corporations, the national and state level economies, private greed v. public need.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Decision where the scope of the term "person" under the 14th Amendment and the Constitution of the United States was expanded to include legal fictions, such as corporations. This granted to corporations the same rights (such as freedom of speech, freedom of contract) that previously were retained only by human persons, under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment. Enormously controversial, as decision allowed corporations to claim the Constitution protected them from popular legislation such as minimum wage laws, health and safety standards, taxation, labor laws, etc. Set the defining theme of the Court's jurisprudence for the next 50 years, until Carolene Products in 1938.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
The Plessy v. Ferguson decision upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". This case remained the legal basis for Jim Crow segregation laws in the Southern states.

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1, with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.

After the high court ruled, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) that had brought the suit and that had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, replied, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."

Insular Cases, (1901-1905)
The Insular Cases were a series of Supreme Court decisions concerning territories annexed by the United States during the 1898 Spanish-American War and further annexations. The most significant precedent established by these cases was that "the Constitution does not follow the flag." This means that the rights of American citizens as granted by the Constitution do not necessarily apply to "American" inhabitants of U.S. territories. These cases were known as Insular Cases because the territories annexed by the U.S. were islands, among them the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. These cases also established that the Constitution only applied to "fully incorporated territories," meaning that the territories had to be fully incorporated into the United States under the doctrine of territorial incorporation, also established during this time.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Schenck v. United States was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist party and was responsible for printing, distributing, and mailing 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft that advocated opposition to the draft. These leaflets contained statements such as; "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." Ultimately, the case served as the founding of the "clear and present danger" rule, first written in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Third Constitutional Era (1938-?)
Civil rights, equality under the law, the right to privacy, "penumbras formed by emanations", the meaning of justice, the limits of the executive, the manifold possibilities of liberty.

Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
First civil liberties case of the Third Era, involving freedom of assembly, association, and speech; specifically, related to the repression of labor unions by infamous Boss Hague in New Jersey.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Korematsu v. United States was a decision related to internment of Japanese-Americans (including citizens of the United States) in prison camps during World War II. By Executive Order 9066, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered all Japanese and Japanese American residents of certain parts close to the coast removed in 1942, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This eventually led to the establishment of internment camps for around 120,000 ethnic Japanese, most of them citizens of the United States, in the military zones established by the executive order. In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment, voting by 6-5 that the requirement to protect the United States against espionage was more important than the rights of Japanese immigrants and citizens in the United States.

In 2018 the Supreme Court found that Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided in the case Trump v. Hawaii.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
During the Korean War, a labor dispute arose between the Steelworkers (an association of workers, called a labor union) and the various steel mills who employed them. The steel mills claimed that the workers in question were being paid too much, and, after difficult negotiations, decided to lockout these workers, so that they could avoid paying them. The workers were outraged that they were being locked out, due to the enormous unfulfilled needs of soldiers on the battlefield for tanks and weapons that couldn't be produced and were being ignored due to the position of the mill owners, and perhaps also due to the fact that they weren't able to work or get paid.

President Harry Truman decided to intervene, claiming that due to the fact that a war was going on, he, as "Commander in Chief", could temporarily seize and run the steel mills under the Federal Government so as to continue production during the war. This outraged both the steel mills and the workers; both sides didn't believe the government could do such a thing, as no law had been passed to allow those sorts of actions to take place; indeed, most people believed that unilateral actions like Truman's, in this case, were exactly the type of thing the Constitution was there to prevent.

The owners of the steel mills sued the government for seizing the steel mills. Within several weeks, due to the emergency nature of the situation, the case came before the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled against the Government, finding that there were no provisions in the law or the Constitution that allowed the government to seize private industry (or to force workers to work) during a labor dispute. Though the decision was mixed--almost every Justice wrote an opinion--it was definitively against the Government. Justice Harlan? wrote the most famous opinion in this case--delineating three spheres of Presidential power--that is considered to be the single most authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the scope of Presidential powers since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War; Harlan's? opinion still is considered authoritative to this day.

This case, although it might seem minor to the reader, has great meta-Constitutional importance--Presidential powers have greatly expanded since the Framing of the Constitution--and their exact scope is extremely controversial, especially in the past 30-40 years.

The mills were returned to their owners, who (very quickly) reached agreement with the workers, and the dispute was resolved.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
VERY IMPORTANT Supreme Court case which decided that racial segregation in public schools was contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; one factor that set in motion the civil rights movement amongst African-Americans. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.[2] Contents [hide]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
The Exclusionary Rule protects defendants in criminal cases from having unlawfully obtained evidence used against them in court, such as stolen items found during a search of a residence by police without a warrant. For many years, the Exclusionary Rule only was applied at the federal level. Federal criminal prosecutions are an extremely tiny minority of all criminal prosecutions in the United States; most prosecutions occur at the state level, including nearly all of those for extraordinarily serious crimes, such as murder and rape. (Federal crimes include offenses against federal property and agents; certain crimes taking place in multiple states, such as a spree of bank robberies; interstate conspiracies, such as a drug-smuggling ring; crimes taking place under color of law, such as police brutality or judicial corruption; and also include acts of terrorism, military crimes, espionage, and treason. The states are responsible for the prosecution of all other criminal acts, from drunken disorderliness all the way to premeditated murder.)

In Mapp, the Supreme Court found that the Exclusionary Rule applied to the states, and that evidence unlawfully obtained could not be used for state prosecutions, in addition to federal ones. The grounds for this were found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which required that states not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; liberty was held to include those rights protected by the Bill of Rights, which had previously only applied to acts of the Federal Government.

Mapp forced wholesale changes in police procedure throughout the United States, as police were now required to obtain warrants to gather evidence that could be used in court. (Previously, police were supposed to obtain warrants to search homes, but as the evidence gained by warrantless (i.e. unlawful) searches was admitted regardless of whether it was obtained by warrant or not, this rule was widely ignored.) In addition, Mapp signaled an increased level of scrutiny by the Supreme Court over police practices, which has continued to the present day.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Case that decided that accused persons had right to a lawyer even if they could not afford one.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
This Supreme Court case was brought by a married couple who claimed that their fundamental liberties were infringed by a Connecticut statute that outlawed the sale of birth control devices and medicines within the state. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that their Constitutional right to privacy was infringed by the Connecticut birth control ban, and invalidated it for married couples.

Justice Douglass famously wrote that the right to privacy, a right not explicitly written into the text of the Constitution, was instead implied by "penumbras formed by emanations" by the other enumerated rights reserved to the people and listed in the Constitution, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches without a warrant. Especially after Roe v. Wade, some conservatives have used the "penumbra" passage to decry what they believe to be the alleged judicial "creation" of rights not found in the Constitution.

Though this case was relatively uncontroversial when it was decided, as it only impacted married couples, it laid the foundation for the Court's decision 8 years later in Roe v. Wade, where the Court overturned all laws banning abortion in the US as violations of the right to privacy, which is perhaps one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions ever.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Case requiring that the famous Miranda warnings, advising arrested persons of their right to remain silent, to have a lawyer present, and to have a lawyer appointed for free, in the event of lack of money, be given to persons arrested by police prior to interrogation.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Free speech case. Changed what remained of old "clear and present danger" test to "incitement to imminent lawless action test". Important in understanding U.S. free speech jurisprudence.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a famous and extraordinarily controversial Supreme Court case that found the Constitution of the United States prohibits outlawing of abortion, or the imposition of undue restrictions upon it, at least during the initial stages of a pregnancy. Roe is likely the most controversial Supreme Court case in 20th century U.S. history, and ranks among Bush v. Gore (2000), Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), and Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), as one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases of all time. On June 24th, 2022 the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Roe, a woman from the state of Texas, had an unwanted pregnancy. Texas law, at that time, forbade the termination of pregnancy except under certain medical circumstances, such as the endangerment of the pregnant woman's life. Roe sued the state of Texas, alleging that her 14th Amendment right to privacy was being violated by the law forbidding termination of pregnancy. The case worked its way up through the several Federal courts, and reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with Roe, and found the Texas law to be an unconstitutional invasion of Roe's right to privacy between doctor and patient. The decision in Roe was unique, though, as the Court did not just strike down the Texas law; it issued guidelines as to what regulation of abortion it would consider permissible. (It is normally very unusual for the Court to say what is allowed to government, versus determining what is forbidden for government to do.) The Court decided that during the first 3 months of a pregnancy, abortion was acceptable for any reason; during the second 3 months, regulation to protect health could be imposed, such as requiring that abortions take place in hospitals; and during the last 3 months, abortion could be generally forbidden, due to the late stage and development of the pregnancy.

This decision caused immediate and immense controversy throughout the United States. Persons of numerous faiths objected to it (especially Catholics and conservative Protestants); feminist & civil rights groups applauded it; liberal groups (the left of the American political spectrum) were generally viewed as supportive of Roe, while conservative groups (the right of the American political spectrum) were generally viewed as being opposed to the decision.

Support & Opposition to Roe
Political and religious stereotypes scarcely capture the immense political and legal debate about the implications of Roe. This section reviews a few of these arguments.

Supporters of Roe view Roe as an important decision that affirmed what they consider the basic rights of women, especially the right for women to control their own body and reproductive systems. Other supporters view Roe as an important triumph in the area of reproductive public policy, establishing the right to control over active pregnancy into the law of the land. Still others focus on sociological arguments, sometimes claiming that Roe led to decreases in crime in the years since the decision, as unwanted pregnancies, and therefore the number of unsupportable children was reduced by the availability of abortion. (Others claim that the decrease in unwanted children is due to effective contraception widely available upon request, and the rise of comprehensive sex education.) Still others claim that it is hypocrisy for people to object to Roe, especially men, who will never have the "opportunity" to walk a mile in the shoes of a teenage woman with an unwanted pregnancy, which will severely impact her future choices as well as cause her and her family shame. This view can be expressed by the slogan: "Don't like abortion? Get a vasectomy!"

Objections to Roe are numerous. Legal objections can be broken down into several arguments. One is that the Supreme Court, rather than interpreting the Constitution, legislated from the bench, in either upholding or greatly expanding the scope of the unwritten privacy right into an area which is generally not considered a subject of privacy, namely the permissibility of medical procedures performed by state-licensed health-care professionals. Individuals subscribing to this argument may take the view that irregardless of whether abortion is good public policy or not, it is not a legal matter implicating fundamental liberties, due to the uncertain origin and tortured nature of the privacy argument, but a political matter, for the people's representatives to consider and decide upon. Another is that the Supreme Court failed to consider the possibility that fetuses (or, as some term them, babies), may have rights as well as the pregnant woman, and those potential rights have to be analyzed as part of any decisions surrounding abortion. Others focus on the implications of decisions of this nature, viewing them as overreaching, and setting dangerous precedents that allow the Court to deeply intrude into political questions that go further than fundamental liberties (like freedom of speech, or the right to a fair trial), such as the Court was viewed by many as doing in Bush v. Gore.

Other objections include those of morality and religion. These objections are often raised by conservative Protestants, as well as Catholics, in general. However, a number of liberal Protestant and Catholics, as well as non-religious people also object to abortion, as what they view as a violation of human rights.

Impact and Implications of Roe
It can be scarcely disputed that Roe has caused immeasurable political conflict between supporters and opponents of abortion that goes on to this day; some even believe that Roe and the conflicts surrounding it have caused the basic consensus underlying the foundations of United States democracy to be injured. It is arguable that Roe was the last blow that shattered the New Deal Coalition of liberals and moderates that had governed the U.S. for perhaps 40 years at the time. Objectors to Roe no longer saw the general political community of the United States as sharing their values, and opted out of that community, seeking and creating new political communities within and based upon their faith. These faith-based political communities would later do battle with the ideology-based political communities created during and in the wake of the Vietnam War, and forged in place by the great unrest of 1968.

This clash of beliefs came to be characterised by conservatives as a 'Culture War' which became an evocative touchstone of their political activism from the 1980s onwards.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
This case originated out of a dispute over a subpoena for evidence pertinent to special prosecutor Archibald Cox's Watergate investigation. Because of Cox's insistence that President Nixon hand over his infamous audiotaped conversations, he was fired as a part of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Cox's successor, Leon Jaworski, continued to pursue the subpoena. Nixon continued to refuse to hand the tapes over, and cited his executive privilege in asserting their confidentiality. Jaworski filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court in hopes of obtaining a court order forcing Nixon to obey the subpoena.

Although in private deliberations, the justices did not come to a unanimous opinion, they decided to rule unanimously with the majority's opinion in order to make the ruling more definitive to Nixon and pressure him not to ignore it. The opinion held that, not only as established in Marbury v. Madison that the Court was the final say concerning whether or not laws were constitutional, the Court could also decide how the President's powers are limited by the Constitution. The court also held that executive privilege did not apply to evidence pertinent to criminal cases. Most importantly, the Court ruled that, using the power it had affirmed, that nobody, including the President of the United States, was above the law.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Supreme Court case that ruled that quotas as a form of affirmative action (i.e. a guaranteed minimum percentage reservation of seats in a public institution for minority groups who were subject to past discrimination) were violative of the Constitution, and were thus illegal.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Supreme Court case that found that laws forbidding and criminalizing private, consensual, non-commercial sexual conduct between unrelated adults that a legislative body found to be immoral were compatible with the Constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy. Overruled and reversed as being wrongly decided in the first instance by Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
This case is notable, not because it set any new precedent, but because of the magnitude of the decision: the Supreme Court effectively decided the 2000 Presidential election, due to voting irregularities in Florida.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Lawrence, a gay man, was in his apartment, having consensual intimate transactions with his unrelated sexual partner, when local police, responding to a weapons complaint of shots fired, suddenly entered his apartment to search for weapons. No weapons were found, but Lawrence and his partner were discovered by the police in flagrante delicto. They were cited by the police for "unnatural sexual intercourse", a crime under the law of the State of Texas.

Lawrence and his partner, Gardner, decided to fight the charges, on the grounds that:
 * 1) The law only applied to "unnatural sexual intercourse" between persons of the same sex, but not against persons of the opposite sex engaging in the same sort of "unnatural sexual intercourse". This, claimed Lawrence, deprived him of the equal protection of the law.
 * 2) The law was an unconstitutional invasion of Lawrence's and Gardner's privacy and liberty, as the "crime" Lawrence and Gardner were accused of were transactions of the most intimate character, were consensual, were non-commercial and took place in private, behind closed doors, in a private space where the authority of the state had no power to enter, nor to regulate such transactions, absent some compelling showing of harm.

The State of Texas argued that the charges should be upheld on the grounds that the state has the right to determine and regulate morality, including morality in private spaces, and that laws forbidding homosexuality were found to be constitutional in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, creating a precedent that had to be upheld by the Court.

The Court agreed with Lawrence and Gardner. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, concluded: “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
This case involved the interpretation of the Second Amendment, appertaining to militias as well as the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, which secures and specifies that the people retain certain rights, including those to life, to liberty, and to property, that no state government may deny them.

Heller, the petitioner, lived in the District of Columbia, whose law forbade the possession of handguns within said District, except under certain very narrow circumstances, which Heller was not eligible for. Believing the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, Heller sued, claiming that his right to keep and bear arms was being infringed by the District.

The Supreme Court agreed with Heller, finding that the Second Amendment does indeed secure to individuals the right to keep and bear arms, and that the Fourteenth Amendment applies this right to the several States; the District's handgun ban was thus overturned.

title: US History/Supreme Court Cases


text:
Confederate States Government/Election of Lincoln

Introduction
The U.S. presidential election of 1860 was a realigning election. The nation had been divided through most of the 1850's on the issue of slavery, with Northerners and Southerners disagreeing over whether or not it should be expanded to the territories, and fighting for each new state admitted to the Union. In 1860, this issue finally came to a head, bringing Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party to power, while it simultaneously fractured the formerly dominant Democratic Party in two.

The immediate result was the secession of seven southern states to form their own country and the outbreak of the American Civil War.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Modern History/Opium Wars

The "Opium Wars" were two wars that were the climax of a long dispute between Britain and China. In the second, France fought alongside the British. This dispute was around the Opium trade which was perceived from two different culturtal and economic vantage points -- as with any and all global economic conflicts between two parties. The Chinese Emperor had banned opium in China due to its harmful effects on Chinese citizens and its denigratory impact on the Chinese culture; The British Empire, however, saw opium as a profitable good for commercial trade, as its import would help balance the huge trade deficit with China. The Opium Wars and the many treaties signed afterward led in part to the downfall of the Chinese economy, as many countries followed Britain and forced more treaties to increase trade within China.

title: Modern History/Opium Wars


text:
Modern History/Queen Victoria

Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) (24 May, 1819 – 22 January, 1901) was the eminent Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 20 June, 1837, and Empress of India from 1 January, 1877, until her death in 1901. Her reign lasted more than sixty-three years, longer than that of any other British monarch. As well as being Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, she was also the first monarch to use the title Empress of India. The reign of Victoria was marked by a great expansion of the British Empire. The Victorian Era was at the height of the Industrial Revolution, a period of significant social, economic, and technological change in the United Kingdom. In that period the United Kingdom became the largest superpower the world had ever seen. Victoria, who was largely of German descent, was the last monarch of the House of Hanover; her successor belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

title: Modern History/Queen Victoria


text:
Modern History/Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was an English statesman and literary figure. He served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister – the first and thus far only person of Jewish parentage to do so, although Disraeli was baptised in the Anglican Church at an early age. Disraeli's most lasting achievement was the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Although a major figure in the protectionist wing of the Conservative Party after 1846, Disraeli's relations with the other leading figures in the party, particularly Lord Derby, the overall leader, were often strained. Not until the 1860s would Derby and Disraeli be on easy terms, and the latter's succession of the former assured. From 1852 onwards Disraeli's career would also be marked by his often intense rivalry with William Ewart Gladstone, who eventually rose to become leader of the Liberal Party. In this duel, Disraeli was aided by his warm friendship with Queen Victoria, who came to detest Gladstone during the latter's first premiership in the 1870s. In 1876 Disraeli was raised to the peerage as the Earl of Beaconsfield, capping nearly four decades in the House of Commons. He died in 1881.

Before and during his political career Disraeli was well-known as a literary and social figure, although his novels are not generally regarded as belonging to the first rank of Victorian literature. He mainly wrote romances, of which Sibyl and Vivian Grey are perhaps the best-known today. He was and is unusual among British Prime Ministers for having gained equal social and political renown.

title: Modern History/Benjamin Disraeli


text:
User:Ninly

check me out!

title: User:Ninly


text:
Talk:Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Quickie Render

I deleted the phrase near the beginning: "...quick and easy." which is editorial in nature.

CTRL-F12/ALT-F12
It seems under 2.41 (on Linux, anyway) CTRL-F12 renders the animation, and ALT-F12 does nothing. The menus don't seem to reflect this (i.e. on the Render menu, Render Current Image says F12, while Render Animation has no listed hotkey), but CTRL-F12 rendered over and over, incrementing the number in the cursor, (which I assume is the frame count while rendering the animation).

DavidJaquay 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This happens on Mac OS X 10.4.7 with 2.42 as well.

--85.164.137.50 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

.jpg Extention
As of at least June 2006 the windows version of Blender will add the .jpg extention to the file (at least mine does).

Akdom 10:50 June/03/2006

Render shows a different figure from the one in the viewport.
(Reader (Colin Connaughton):- My render is quite different from the figure in my viewport. The viewport gives what I would expect with a cube with one vertex pulled out. The render is a bit like that, but the surface which was pulled out is not planar, it is bent so that it stays with the main cube and then branches off towards the pulled vertex. Is this because of some render setting? Can this be rectified so that the render matches the figure?)

(Reader (Tony): From what I understand about how this works at this point the reason it looks different is because it is rendering the image that the Camera see's not what is in the viewport. If you zoom out you will see a camera as well as a light in the sceen.)

(Reader Colin: Thanks Tony, but I've had a new try on a new cube. The figure and the render are different as follows:- I pulled one top vertex down towards the bottom of the cube. That meant that the 4 top vertices were no longer in a plane. So there is a crease. In the viewport the crease (V-shaped) is along the line joining the pulled vertex and the diagonally opposite vertex on the top. In the render the crease (^-shaped this time) is along the line joining the other two vertices on the top!

I suppose the program must choose one way or the other and there is no reason to prefer either. Also, if the model was finely meshed or if the faces were triangular, it would not matter. So I no longer see this as a problem.)

Reader William: I've gotten to this point and the render window is always black. I have a lamp in the scene. If I render an animation my temp folder starts filling with images, but I still don't see anything in the render window.

Object mode necessary?
I can render just fine if I'm still in edit mode by pressing F12. Is the switch back to object mode really necessary?

Error no camera
Sorry total novice to Blender, the tutorial says to hit F12 to render a model, but I get a Error that there is no camera. Is there a tutorial for adding a simple camera?

Camera exists, can't align with cube
After wading through about all the pages on getting around the UI, I've finally got to the point where I can render something. Hurrah! The only problem is, I keep getting a blank blue page. Some experimentation tells me that the camera is not pointed at the cube, but getting the two to line up is a freaking nightmare.

So, if you are seeing a blank blue page after rendering, the answer would be to mess around with the numpad until you get the camera (the triangle wiremesh) near the cube. I found that num8 and num6 where the most helpful.

Missing pictures
The pictures from that link to the other tutorial on working with cameras are missing...

CMD-Tab on Mac
CMD-Tab on Mac switches between apps, not windows. CMD-` switches between windows in most Mac apps, but this doesn't appear to be implemented in Blender.

Blender 2.5
Will need to start updating GUI info to fit in with Blender 2.5


text:
Talk:Programmable Logic

I would like to introduce this book after the Control Systems book is introduced and reaches steady-state. Hopefully, this will be no later then June. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This book will eventually be a repository for information in designing VLSI systems. It will be a logical conclusion from the VLSI section in the Embedded Systems book. We will talk about practical uses of VLSI, VLSI chips, compilers, etc... We will talk about state diagrams, and other things. -- 21:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to focus on all the nifty things we can do with FPGAs? Or will this go even further to talk about full-custom digital chip design? (Or go even further to talk about full-custom analog chip design?) --DavidCary 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I was thinking that custom digital/analog chip design would be a pretty expansive subject to talk about, and we would probably benefit from having a book right now just focusing on FPGAs. of course, this raises the question of whether we should rename this book to "FPGA Programming", or something more specific. I think that this book should generally focus on FPGA programming, Verilog, VHDL, and topics of similar interest. We can discuss broader topics in a different book, i think. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Your sugesstion to change the title I think is wise. VLSI is a term to state how many transistors are in a chip. It is true however, that FPGAs today are pretty much VLSI size chips. A VLSI Design book (or better yet a book on chip design with a VLSI design section) wouldnt be a bad idea either for a future book, but I have no know how on that subject as of yet. If I can I would like to suggest that you rename the title to "Programable Logic Design", since there are alot more programable logic devices other than FPGAs (CPLDs are like FPGAs but they are corase grain and have less gates but use the same languages as an FPGA). I also would like to offer help in this article, I havent used an FPGA extensively yet but,I do know VHDL and how a FPGA works. Oh also I was going to ask if you could add a section on SystemC another HDL type language but one that is just starting to become known. --Asm2750 12:27, 3/22/2006

 * Excellent suggestions, all. This is currently just an outline for a book, although I would like to introduce it onto a bookshelf soon that that people such as yourself can start contributing to it. The title "Programmable Logic Design" is a very good one, and more too the point. I originally focused on FPGA as a matter of habit (FPGAs are what I personally use in my research), but we can definately cover CPLDs as well. Also, we will most certainly cover System C. I can't imagine a PGD book without it. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates and resources
Here are some templates and category resources that are used in this book:

 * /Page
 * /Stub
 * :
 * /Stubs

More information on each can be found on their respective pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I've updated the above list to use current naming conventions (please pardon the liberty). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Programmable Logic


text:
Template:Programmable Logic/Page

 Programmable Logic

title: Template:Programmable Logic/Page


text:
WebObjects/EOF/Modeling/Custom Attributes

Kieran Kelleher has written an excellent article on his blog about performing encryption on an EO attribute via a custom attribute:

http://web.archive.org/20071121050703/homepage.mac.com/kelleherk/iblog/C729512539/E2033071041/index.html


text:
User:Chriswaterguy/Recipes and cooking tips

I believe in good food - it has to taste good, be satisfying, and be nutritious.

Health
Health does not require fretting about food - in fact, being neurotic probably means you won't get very old.

One of the most surefire ways to delay aging is to consume less calories while still getting proper nutrition. If this means going hungry, then no thanks. But we can imitate the centenarians of Okinawa - they have maintained their health by eating well but eat high water content food, which is filling but with less calories. This means lots of vegetables.

The book French Women Don't Get Fat - The Secret of Eating for Pleasure has helped me in this regard - it's helped me enjoy my food more and feel satisfied without overeating. Do what works for you, as long as you enjoy it. I think the No S diet has some good ideas - e.g. avoiding snacking. Not sure I can manage that... but I've learnt that it's okay to get hungry, and that way I enjoy my meal all the more.

And of course, don't forget to exercise. The best way to ensure you get exercise is to sell your car. And you'll reduce your stress levels and improve your finances at the same time. If you can't sell your car because there's no public transport, then keep this in mind next time you vote. And try to choose better next time you move house.

Great dishes
Coming soon... the list of foods that I enjoy and which have created an impression when I've served them. They're quite economical as they're vegetarian; they take a bit of time - from 30 to 90 min of relaxed preparation and cooking time - but they're worth it.


text:
Modern History/Front Cover

Modern History

title: Modern History/Front Cover


text:
Modern History/Greco-Turkish War

The name Greco-Turkish War is given to two armed conflicts between Greece and Turkey or its predecessor the Ottoman Empire

 * The Greco-Turkish War of 1897 (also called the Thirty Days' War)
 * The Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 (also called the War in Asia Minor, the Catastrophe of Asia Minor, and in Turkey part of the Turkish War of Independence)

The Greco–Turkish War of 1919–1922, also called the War in Asia Minor, and in Turkey considered a part of the Turkish War of Independence, was a war between Greece and Turkey fought in the wake of World War I.

This political context of this conflict is linked to secret agreements on sharing of Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. Military history begins with the Armistice of Mudros. The war arose because the western Allies, particularly British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, had promised Greece territorial gains at the expense of the Ottoman Empire if Greece entered the war on the Allied side. These included eastern Thrace, the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, and parts of western Anatolia around the city of Smyrna (İzmir)

In return to the contribution of the Greek army in the war effort, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, which ended the First World War in Asia Minor and in parallel determined the future of the Ottoman Empire, assigned eastern Thrace and the millet of Smyrna to Greece.

Around that time Mustafa Kemal, the leader of a group of Turkish revolutionaries, was forming in Anatolia, the Turkish National Movement. The revolutionaries repudiated the Treaty of Sèvres and prepared for defense of what they believed was their national land given up by the weak Ottoman government to the enemy.

In May 1919, Greek troops landed on Smyrna (İzmir) and occupied the city and the surroundings under cover of French, British and American ships. The Greeks of Smyrna, who were the majority of the city's population, and other Christians greeted the Greek troops as liberators. The Turkish population though saw this as an invading force, as they resented the Greeks and presumably preferred to be under Turkish rule.

The resistance started immediately, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs and the Greeks had many losses. In the summer of 1920, the Greek army, launched successful attacks and extended its zone of occupation over all Western and North Western Asia Minor. Greeks already occupied Eastern Thrace.

In October 1920, with the encouragement of Lloyd George who intended to increase the pressure on the Turkish and Ottoman governments to sign the Treaty of Sevrès, the Greek army advanced further east into Anatolia with the intention of defeating the Kemalist forces before they were ready to attack the Greek perimeter near the coast. They faced little resistance as the Turks were retreating orderly. This advancement begun under the Liberal government of Eleftherios Venizelos, but soon after the offensive began Venizelos fell from power and was replaced by Dimitrios Gounaris, who appointed inexperienced monarchist officers to senior commands. King Constantine took personal command of the army at Smyrna (İzmir).

title: Modern History/Greco-Turkish War


text:
Circuit Theory/Phasors

=Phasors=

Variables
Variables are defined the same way. But there is a difference. Before variables were either "known" or "unknown." Now there is a sort of in between.

At this point the concept of a constant function (a number) and a variable function (varies with time) needs to be reviewed. See this /student professor / dialogue. Knowns are described in terms of functions, unknowns are computed based upon the knowns and are also functions.

For example:
 * $$v(t) = M_v \cos (\omega t + \phi_v)$$ voltage varying with time

Here $$v(t)$$ is the symbol for a function. It is assigned a function of the symbols $$M_v, \omega, \phi_v$$ and $$t$$. Typically time is not ever solved for.

Time remains an unknown. Furthermore all power, voltage and current turn into equations of time. Time is not solved for. Because time is everywhere, it can be eliminated from the equations. Integrals and derivatives turn into algebra and the answers can be purely numeric (before time is added back in).

At the last moment, time is put back into voltage, current and power and the final solution is a function of time.

Most of the math in this course has these steps:
 * 1) describe knowns and unknowns in the time domain, describe all equations
 * 2) change knowns into phasors, eliminate derivatives and integrals in the equations
 * 3) solve numerically or symbolically for unknowns in the phasor domain
 * 4) transform unknowns back into the time domain

Passive circuit output is similar to input
If the input to a linear circuit is a sinusoid, then the output from the circuit will be a sinusoid. Specifically, if we have a voltage sinusoid as such:

 * $$v(t) = M_v \cos (\omega t + \phi_v)$$

Then the current through the linear circuit will also be a sinusoid, although its magnitude and phase may be different quantities:

 * $$i(t) = M_i \cos (\omega t + \phi_i)$$

Note that both the voltage and the current are sinusoids with the same radial frequency, but different magnitudes, and different phase angles. Passive circuit elements cannot change the frequency of a sinusoid, only the magnitude and the phase. Why then do we need to write $$\omega$$ in every equation, when it doesnt change? For that matter, why do we need to write out the cos function, if that never changes either? The answers to these questions is that we don't need to write these things every time. Instead, engineers have produced a short-hand way of writing these functions, called "phasors".

Phasor Transform
Phasors are a type of "transform." We are transforming the circuit math so that time disappears. Imagine going to a place where time doesn't exist.

We know that every function can be written as a series of sine waves of various frequencies and magnitudes added together. (Look up Fourier transform animation). The entire world can be constructed from sine waves. Because a sine wave repeats, it doesn't matter at what particular time you look at it; all that matters is where you look relative to the beginning of the period. Here, one sine wave is looked at, the repeating nature ($$\omega$$) is stripped away. What's left is a phasor. Since time is made of circles, and if we consider just one of these circles, we can move to a world where time doesn't exist and circles are "things". Instead of the word "world", use the word "domain" or "plane" as in two dimensions.

Math in the Phasor domain is almost the same as DC circuit analysis. This is handy, because it means that you don't have to solve differential equations every time you want to solve a circuit. What is different is that inductors and capacitors have an impact that needs to be accounted for.

The transform into the Phasor plane or domain and transforming back into time is based upon Euler's equation. It is the reason you studied imaginary numbers in past math class.

Euler's Equation
Euler started at these three series. Obviously there is a relationship:

 * $$\cos x = 1 - \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} - \frac{x^6}{6!} + \cdots$$
 * $$\sin x = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \frac{x^7}{7!} + \cdots$$
 * $$e^{x} = 1 + x + \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} + \cdots$$

He did the following:
 * $$e^{ix} = 1 + i x + \frac{i^2 x^2}{2!} + \frac{i^ 3 x^3}{3!} + \frac{i^ 4 x^4}{4!} + \frac{i^ 5 x^5}{5!} + \cdots$$
 * $$e^{ix} = 1 + i x - \frac{x^2}{2!} - i\frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} + i\frac{x^5}{5!} - \frac{x^6}{6!} - i\frac{x^7}{7!} \cdots$$
 * $$e^{ix} = (1 - \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} - \frac{x^6}{6!} + \cdots) + i (x - \frac{x^3}{3!}  + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \frac{x^7}{7!} + \cdots)$$
 * $$e^{ix} = \cos(x) + i \sin(x)$$

Set x = π and:
 * $$e^{i\pi} = -1$$

Euler's formula is ubiquitous in mathematics, physics, and engineering. The physicist Richard Feynman called the equation "our jewel" and "one of the most remarkable, almost astounding, formulas in all of mathematics."

A more general version of Euler's equation is:

 * $$M e^{j(\omega t + \phi)} = M \cos (\omega t + \phi) + j M \sin (\omega t + \phi)$$

This equation allows us to view sinusoids as complex exponential functions. A cyclic function represented as a voltage, current or power given in terms of radial frequency and phase angle turns into an arrow having length $$\mathbb{C}$$ (magnitude) and angle $$\phi$$ (phase) in the phasor domain/plane or a point having both a real ($$X$$) and imaginary ($$Y$$) coordinate in the complex domain/plane.

Generically, the phasor $$\mathbb{C}$$, (which could be voltage, current or power) can be written:

 * $$\mathbb{C} = X + jY$$ (rectangular coordinates)
 * $$\mathbb{C} = M_v \angle \phi$$ (polar coordinates)

We can graph the point (X, Y) on the complex plane and draw an arrow to it showing the relationship between $$X,Y,\mathbb{C}$$ and $$\phi$$.

Using this fact, we can get the angle from the origin of the complex plane to out point (X, Y) with the function:

 * $$\theta_C = \arctan(\frac{Y}{X})$$

And using the pythagorean theorem, we can find the magnitude of C -- the distance from the origin to the point (X, Y) -- as:

 * $$M_C = |\mathbb{C}| = \sqrt{X^2 + Y^2}$$.

Phasor Symbols
Suppose in the time domain:
 * $$v(t) = M_v e^{j(\omega t + \phi)}$$

In the phasor domain, this voltage is expressed like this:
 * $$\mathbb{V} = M_v \angle \phi$$

The radial velocity $$\omega$$ disappears from known functions (not the derivate and integral operations) and reappears in the time expression for the unknowns.

Not a Vector?
Some argue that phasors are vectors. Be careful. A phasor diagram is not as rich as vector space or field space either in inspiration, math or concepts. A phasor is just a number .. possibly imaginary number. The phasor diagram is used to "explain" what an imaginary number is. Phasors can be divided, multiplied, added, and subtracted. They are one dimensional things.

The math of phasors is exactly the same as ordinary math, except with imaginary numbers. Vectors demand new mathematical operations such as dot product and cross product. For example can North be divided by East or subtracted from West?

For more details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor_(electronics) or read about this controversy at https://www.quora.com/What-is-difference-b-w-phasor-diagram-and-vector-diagram

 * The dot product of vectors finds the shadow of one vector on another.
 * The cross product of vectors combines vectors into a third vector perpendicular to both.

These products do apply to phasors, as could be viewed in phasors for AC currents in motor stator and rotor, with the consequence of the creation of a torque, and all of these is expressible exactly by vector products.

Cosine Convention
It is important to remember which trigonometric function your phasors are mapping to. Since a phasor only includes information on magnitude and phase angle, it is impossible to know whether a given phasor maps to a sin function, or a cos function instead. By convention, this wikibook and most electronic texts/documentation map to the cosine function.

If you end up with an answer that is sin, convert to cos by subtracting 90 degrees:
 * $$\sin(\omega t + \phi) = \cos(\omega t + \phi - \frac{\pi}{2})$$

If your simulator requires the source to be in sin form, but the starting point is cos, then convert to sin by adding 90 degrees:
 * $$\cos(\omega t + \phi) = \sin(\omega t + \phi + \frac{\pi}{2})$$

Phasor Concepts
Inside the phasor domain, concepts appear and are named. Inductors and capacitors can be coupled with their derivative operator transforms and appear as imaginary resistors called "reactance." The combination of resistance and reactance is called "impedance." Impedance can be treated algebraically as a phasor although technically it is not. Power concepts such as real, reactive, apparent and power factor appear in the phasor domain. Numeric math can be done in the phasor domain. Symbols can be manipulated in the phasor domain.

Phasor Math
Phasor math turns into the imaginary number math which is reviewed below.

Phasor A can be multiplied by phasor B:

 * $$\mathbb{A} \times \mathbb{B} = (M_a \times M_b) \angle (\phi_a + \phi_b)$$

The phase angles add because in the time domain they are exponents of two things multiplied together.

 * $$\mathbb{A} / \mathbb{B} = (M_a / M_b) \angle (\phi_a - \phi_b)$$

Again the phase angles are treated like exponents ... so they subtract.

The magnitude and angle form of phasors can not be used for addition and subtraction. For this, we need to convert the phasors into rectangular notation:
 * $$\mathbb{C} = X + jY$$

Here is how to convert from polar form (magnitude and angle) to rectangular form (real and imaginary)
 * $$X = M \cos (\phi)$$, $$Y = M \sin (\phi)$$

Once in rectangular form:
 * Real parts get add or subtract
 * Imaginary parts add or subtract

 * $$\mathbb{C} = \mathbb{A} + \mathbb{B} = (X_A + X_B) + j(Y_A + Y_B) = X_C + jY_C$$

Here is how to convert from rectangular form to polar form:

 * $$\mathbb{C} = M_c \angle \phi_c = \sqrt{X^2 + Y^2} \angle \arctan(\frac{Y}{X})$$

Once in polar phasor form, conversion back into the time domain is easy:

 * $$\operatorname{Re}(M e^{j(\omega t + \phi)}) = M \cos (\omega t + \phi)$$

Function transformation Derivation
$$g(t)$$ represents either voltage, current or power.

 * $$g(t)=G_m cos(\omega t + \phi)$$ starting point
 * $$g(t)=G_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j(\omega t + \phi)})$$ from Euler's Equation
 * $$g(t)=G_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\phi}e^{j\omega t})$$ law of exponents
 * $$g(t)=\operatorname{Re}(G_m e^{j\phi}e^{j\omega t})$$ .... $$G_m$$ is a real number so it can be moved inside
 * $$g(t)=\operatorname{Re}(\mathbb{G} e^{j\omega t})$$ $$ .... \mathbb{G}$$ is the definition of a phasor, here it is an expression substituting for $$G_m e^{j\phi}$$
 * $$g(t) \Leftrightarrow \mathbb{G}$$ where $$ \mathbb{G} = G_m e^{j\phi}$$

What happens to $$e^{j\omega t}$$ term? Long Answer. It hangs around until it is time to transform back into the time domain. Because it is an exponent, and all the phasor math is algebra associated with exponents, the final phasor can be multiplied by it. Then the real part of the expression will be the time domain solution.

In all the cases above, remember that $$\phi$$ is a constant, a known value in most cases. Thus the phasor is an complex number in most calculations.

There is another transform associated with a derivatives that is discussed in "phasor calculus."

Transforming calculus operators into phasors
When sinusoids are represented as phasors, differential equations become algebra. This result follows from the fact that the complex exponential is the eigenfunction of the operation:

 * $$\frac{d}{dt}(e^{j \omega t}) = j \omega e^{j \omega t}$$

That is, only the complex amplitude is changed by the derivative operation. Taking the real part of both sides of the above equation gives the familiar result:

 * $$\frac{d}{dt} \cos{\omega t} = - \omega \sin{\omega t}\,$$

Thus, a time derivative of a sinusoid becomes, when tranformed into the phasor domain, algebra:

 * $${d \over dt}i(t)\rightarrow j\omega\mathbb{I}$$ (j is the square root of -1 or an imaginary number)

In a similar way the time integral, when transformed into the phasor domain is:
 * $$\int V(t) dt \rightarrow \frac{\mathbb{V}}{j\omega}$$

There is an integration constant that will have to be dealt with when translating back into the time domain. It doesn't disappear.

The above is true of voltage, current, and power.

The question is why does this work? Where is the proof? Lets do this three times: once for a resistor, then inductor, then capacitor. The symbols for the current and voltage going through the terminals are: $$V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_v)$$ and $$I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I)$$

Resistor Terminal Equation

 * $$V=R I$$ . terminal relationship
 * $$V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V) = R I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I)$$ .. substituting example functions
 * $$V_m e^{\omega t + j \phi_V} = R I_m e^{\omega t + j \phi_I}$$ .. Euler's version of the terminal relationship
 * $$V_m e^{\omega t} e^{j \phi_V} = R I_m e^{\omega t} e^{j \phi_I}$$ .. law of exponents
 * $$V_m \cancel{e^{\omega t}} e^{j \phi_V} = R I_m \cancel{e^{\omega t}} e^{j \phi_I}$$ .. do same thing go both sides of equal sign
 * $$V_m e^{j \phi_V} = R I_m e^{j \phi_I}$$ .. time domain result
 * $$\mathbb{V} = R \mathbb{I}$$ .. phasor expression

Just put the voltage and current in phasor form and substitute to migrate equation into the phasor domain.

Inductor Terminal Equation

 * $$V = L\frac{d}{dt}I$$ ... terminal relationship
 * $$V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V) = L \frac{d}{dt} (I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I))$$ .. substitution of a generic sinusoidal
 * $$V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V) = -\omega L I_m sin(\omega t + \phi_I)$$ .. taking the derivative
 * $$- sin(\omega t + \phi_I) = cos(\omega t + \phi_I + \frac{\pi}{2})$$ .. trig
 * $$V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V) = \omega L I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I + \frac{\pi}{2})$$ .. substitution
 * $$V_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j(\omega t + \phi_V)}) = \omega L I_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j(\omega t + \phi_I + \frac{\pi}{2})})$$ from Euler's Equation
 * $$V_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\omega t} e^{j\phi_V}) = \omega L I_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\omega t}e^{j\phi_I}e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}})$$ law of exponents
 * $$ \operatorname{Re}(V_m e^{j\phi_V} \cancel{e^{j\omega t}} ) = \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}} \omega L I_m e^{j\phi_I} \cancel{e^{j\omega t}})$$ .... real numbers can be moved inside
 * $$e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}} = cos(\frac{\pi}{2}) + j*sin(\frac{\pi}{2}) = j$$ ... substitute in above
 * $$\mathbb{I} = I_m e^{j\phi_I}$$ and $$\mathbb{V} = V_m e^{j\phi_V}$$ .. substitute in above
 * cancel out the $$e^{j\omega}$$ terms on both sides
 * $$ \operatorname{Re}(\mathbb{V}e^{j\omega t} ) = \operatorname{Re}(j \omega L \mathbb{I}e^{j\omega t})$$ .... definition of phasors
 * $$ \mathbb{V} = j \omega L \mathbb{I}$$ .... equation transformed into phasor domain

Conclusion, put the voltage and current in phasor form, replace $$\frac{d}{dt}$$ with $$j\omega$$ to translate the equation to the phasor domain.

Capacitor Terminal Equation
A capacitor is basically the same form, V and I switch sides, C is substituted for L.

 * $$I = C\frac{d}{dt}V$$ ... terminal relationship
 * $$I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I) = C \frac{d}{dt} (V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V))$$ .. substitution of a generic sinusoidal
 * $$I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I) = -\omega C V_m sin(\omega t + \phi_V)$$ .. taking the derivative
 * $$- sin(\omega t + \phi_V) = cos(\omega t + \phi_V + \frac{\pi}{2})$$ .. trig
 * $$I_m cos(\omega t + \phi_I) = \omega C V_m cos(\omega t + \phi_V + \frac{\pi}{2})$$ .. substitution
 * $$I_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j(\omega t + \phi_I)}) = \omega C V_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j(\omega t + \phi_V + \frac{\pi}{2})})$$ from Euler's Equation
 * $$I_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\omega t} e^{j\phi_I}) = \omega C V_m \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\omega t}e^{j\phi_V}e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}})$$ law of exponents
 * $$ \operatorname{Re}(I_m e^{j\phi_I} \cancel{e^{j\omega t}}) = \operatorname{Re}(e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}} \omega C V_m e^{j\phi_V} \cancel{e^{j\omega t}})$$ .... real numbers can be moved inside
 * $$e^{j\frac{\pi}{2}} = cos(\frac{\pi}{2}) + j*sin(\frac{\pi}{2}) = j$$ ... substitute in above equation
 * $$\mathbb{V} = V_m e^{j\phi_V}$$ and $$\mathbb{I} = I_m e^{j\phi_I}$$.. substitute in above
 * cancel out the $$e^{j\omega}$$ terms on both sides
 * $$ \operatorname{Re}(\mathbb{I}e^{j\omega t} ) = \operatorname{Re}(j \omega C \mathbb{V}e^{j\omega t})$$ .... definition of phasors
 * $$ \mathbb{I} = j \omega C \mathbb{V}$$ .... equation transformed into phasor domain

Conclusion, put the voltage and current in phasor form, replace $$\frac{d}{dt}$$ with $$j\omega$$ to translate the equation to the phasor domain.

In summary, all the terminal relations have $$e^{j \omega}$$ terms that cancel:

 * $$V_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} = I_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} * R$$
 * $$\mathbb{V} = \mathbb{I}R$$

 * $$V_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} = I_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} * j\omega*L$$
 * $$\mathbb{V} = \mathbb{I}j\omega L$$

 * $$I_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} = V_m e^{j\phi}\cancel{e^{j\omega t}} * j\omega*C$$
 * $$\mathbb{I} = \mathbb{V}j\omega C$$

What is interesting about this path of inquiry/logic/thought is a new concept emerges:

The $$j\omega$$ terms that don't cancel out come from the derivative terms in the terminal relations. These derivative terms are associated with the capacitors and inductors themselves, not the sources. Although the derivative is applied to a source, the independent device the derivative originates from (a capacitor or inductor) is left with its feature after the transform! So if we leave the driving forces as $$\frac{output}{input}$$ ratios on one side of the equal sign, we can consider separately the other side of the equal sign as a function! These functions have a name ... Transfer Functions. When we analyze the voltage/current ratios's in terms of R, L an C, we can sweep $$\omega$$ through a variety of driving source frequencies, or keep the frequency constant and sweep through a variety of inductor values .. . we can analyze the circuit response!

Note: Transfer Functions are an entire section of this course. They come up in mechanical engineering control system classes also. There are similarities. Driving over a bump is like a surge or spike. Driving over a curb is like turning on a circuit. And when mechanical engineers study vibrations, they deal with sinusoidal driving functions, but they are dealing with a three dimensional object rather than a one dimensional object like we are in this course.

Phasor Domain to Time Domain
Getting back into the time domain is just about as simple. After working through the equations in the phasor domain and finding $$\mathbb{V}$$ and $$\mathbb{I}$$, the goal is to convert them to $$V$$ and $$I$$.

The phasor solutions will have the form $$\mathbb{G} = A + Bj = G_m e^{j\phi}$$ you should be able now to convert between the two forms of the solution. Then:
 * $$G = \operatorname{Re}(\mathbb{G} e^{j\omega t})= \operatorname{Re}(G_m e^{j\phi}e^{j\omega t}) = \operatorname{Re}(G_m e^{j(\omega t + \phi)}) = G_m cos(\omega t + \phi)$$

If there was an integral involved in the phasor math, then a constant needs to be added onto the time domain solution. The time constant is calculated from the initial conditions. If the solution doesn't involve a differential equation, then time constant is computed immediately. Otherwise the solution is treated as a particular solution and the time constant is computed after the homogeneous solution's magnitude is found. See the phasor examples for more detail.

What is not covered
There is another way of thinking about circuits where inductors and capacitors are complex resistances. The idea is:

 * impedance = resistance + j * reactance

Or symbolically

 * $$Z = R + j*X$$

Here the derivative is attached to the inductance and capacitance, rather than to the terminal equation as we have done. This spreads the math of solving circuit problems into smaller pieces that is more easily checked, but it makes symbolic solutions more complex and can cause numeric solution errors to accumulate because of intermediate calculations.

The phasor concept is found everywhere. Some day it will be necessary to study this if you get in involved in microwave projects that involve "stubs" or antenna projects that involve a "loading coil" ... the list is huge.

The goal here is to avoid the concepts of conductance, reactance, impedance, susceptance, and admittance ... and avoid the confusion of relating these concepts while trying to compare phasor math with calculus and Laplace transforms.

Phasor Notation

 * $$\mathbb{C} = M \angle \phi$$ "Polar Notation"
 * $$C = M e^{j(\omega t + \phi)}$$ "Exponential Notation"
 * $$\mathbb{C} = A + jB$$ "Rectangular Notation"
 * $$C = M \cos (\omega t + \phi) + j M \sin (\omega t + \phi)$$ "time domain notation"

These 4 notations are all just different ways of writing the same exact thing.

Phasor symbols
When writing on a board or on paper, use hats $$\hat{V}$$ to denote phasors. Expect variations in books and online:
 * $$\mathbb{V}$$ (the large bold block-letters we use in this wikibook)
 * $$\bar{V}$$ ("bar" notation, used by Wikipedia)
 * $$\vec{V}$$ (bad ... save for vectors ... vector arrow notation)
 * $$\tilde{V}$$ (some text books)
 * $$\hat{V}$$ (some text books)

=Differential Equations=

Phasors Generate the Particular Solution
Phasors can replace calculus, they can replace Laplace transforms, they can replace trig. But there is one thing they can not do: initial conditions/integration constants. When doing problems with both phasors and Laplace, or phasors and calculus, the difference in the answers is going to be an integration constant.

Differential equations are solved in this course in three steps:
 * finding the particular solution ... particular to the driving function ... particular to the voltage or current source
 * finding the homogenous solution ... the solution that is the same no matter what the driving function is ... the solution that explores how an initial energy imbalance in the circuit is balanced
 * determining the coefficients, the constants of integration from initial conditions

Phasors Don't Generate Integration Constants
The integration constant doesn't appear in phasor solutions. But they will appear in the Laplace and Calculus alternatives to phasor solutions. If the full differential equation is going to be solved, it is absolutely necessary to see where the phasors fail to create a symbol for the unknown integration constant ... that is calculated in the third step.

Phasors are the technique used to find the particular AC solution. Integration constants document the initial DC bias or energy difference in the circuit. Finding these constants requires first finding the homogeneous solution which deals with the fact that capacitors may or may not be charged when a circuit is first turned on. Phasors don't completely replace the steps of Differential Equations. Phasors just replace the first step: finding the particular solution.

Differential Equations Review
The goal is to solve Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) of the first and second order with both phasors, calculus, and Laplace transforms. This way the phasor solution can be compared with content of pre-requiste or co-requiste math courses. The goal is to do these problems with numeric and symbolic tools such as matLab and mupad/mathematica/wolframalpha. If you have already had the differential equations course, this is a quick review.

The most important thing to understand is the nature of a function. Trig, Calculus, and Laplace transforms and phasors are all associated with functions, not algebra. If you don't understand the difference between algebra and a function, maybe this /student professor/ dialogue will help.

We start with equations from terminal definitions, loops and junctions. Each of the symbols in these algebraic equations is a function. We are not transforming the equations. We are transforming the functions in these equations. All sorts of operators appear in these equations including + - * / and $$\frac{d}{dt}$$. The first table focuses on transforming these operators. The second focuses on transforming the functions themselves.

The real power of the Laplace tranform is that it eliminates the integral and differential operators. Then the functions themselves can be transformed. Then unknowns can be found with just algebra. Then the functions can be transformed back into time domain functions.

Here are some of the Properties and Theorems needed to transform the typical sinusolidal voltages, powers and currents in this class.

Laplace Function Transform
Here are some of the transforms needed in this course:

title: Circuit Theory/Phasors


text:
Modern History/J.R.R. Tolkien

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (January 3, 1892 – September 2, 1973) is best known as the author of The Hobbit and its sequel The Lord of the Rings. He was a professor of Anglo-Saxon language at Oxford from 1925 to 1945, and of English language and literature, also at Oxford, from 1945 to 1959. He was a strongly committed Roman Catholic. Tolkien was a close friend of C. S. Lewis, with whom he shared membership in the literary discussion group the Inklings.

In addition to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien's published fiction includes The Silmarillion and other posthumously published books about what he called a legendarium, a fictional mythology of the remote past of Earth, called Arda, and Middle-earth (from middangeard, the lands inhabitable by Men) in particular. Most of these works were compiled from Tolkien's notes by his son Christopher Tolkien.

title: Modern History/J.R.R. Tolkien


text:
User:Sumoncil

Summoner Oncil (also known as Draconius) is an avid reader, addicted to Blender3D, and a Game Designer His website: http://ca.geocities.com/xentaliongames His Deviantart: http://xentalion.deviantart.com

title: User:Sumoncil


text:
User:Aburda~enwikibooks

Aaron Burda's Page

Aaron is an MBA student at the Graduate School of Management at UC Davis

I am in Beth Bechky's daytime Teams & Technology Class.

Group Project
Open Space

My Company: www.113webdesign.com www.peragrotravel.com

title: User:Aburda~enwikibooks


text:
Modern History/Decolonisation

Decolonization is the process by which a colony gains its independence from a colonial power, a process opposite to colonization. Decolonization could be achieved by attaining independence, integrating with the administering power or another state, or establishing a "free association" status. The UN has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination. Decolonization may involve peaceful negotiation and/or violent revolt by the native population. Decolonization in the strict sense is distinct from the break-up of traditional empires, and in modern academic discourse the period of decolonization generally refers to two major waves of independence from European colonial rule:

From the late 18th century up through 19th century decolonization in the Americas occurred, beginning with American colonists' revolt against British rule in the present-day United States, and continuing through the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America.

In the 20th and 21st centuries "decolonization" usually refers to the achievement of independence by the various European colonies and protectorates in Asia and Africa following the end of World War II. This conforms with an intellectual movement known as Post-Colonialism. A particularly active period of decolonization occurred between 1945 to 1960, beginning with the independence of Pakistan and India from Britain in 1947.

title: Modern History/Decolonisation


text:
Modern History/East Timor

The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste or East Timor is one of the newest independent countries in the world, located in Southeastern Asia. It consists of the eastern half of the island of Timor, the nearby islands of Atauro and Jaco, and Oecussi-Ambeno, an exclave of East Timor situated on the northwestern side of the island, surrounded by Indonesian West Timor. The small country is located about 400 miles northwest of Darwin, Australia.

The name Timor is derived from timur, the Malay word for 'east', which became Timor in Portuguese. The Portuguese name Timor-Leste and the Tetum name Timor Lorosa'e are sometimes used in English. Lorosa'e means 'rising sun' in Tetum.

East Timor has the lowest per capita GDP (Purchasing Power Parity adjusted) in the world of only $400 (which corresponds to the 192nd, and last, position). However, regarding the Human Development Index, or HDI, it is in 140th place among the world's nations, which corresponds to medium human development.

Colonized by Portugal in the 16th century, East Timor was known as Portuguese Timor for centuries. It was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, which occupied it until 1999. Following the UN-sponsored act of self-determination that year, Indonesia relinquished control of the territory, which achieved full independence on May 20, 2002. With the Philippines, East Timor is one of only two majority Roman Catholic countries in Asia.

Storia moderna/Timor Est

title: Modern History/East Timor


text:
Modern History/Earl Lincoln Poole

Earl Lincoln Poole (1891-1972) was an American bird artist and sculptor. Published versions of his illustrations appeared in Birds of Virginia (1913) and Bird Studies at Old Cape May (1937). He was born in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and was active in Pennsylvania.

title: Modern History/Earl Lincoln Poole