text:
List of loop quantum gravity researchers

This is a list of researchers in the physics field of loop quantum gravity.
 * Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
 * Mohammad Ansari, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Abhay Ashtekar, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * John Baez, University of California, USA
 * Benjamin Bahr, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein Institute), Germany
 * John W. Barrett, University of Nottingham, UK
 * Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Martin Bojowald, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Luca Bombelli, University of Mississippi, USA
 * Johannes Brunnemann, University of Hamburg, Germany
 * Steve Carlip, University of California, USA
 * Dan Christensen, University of Western Ontario and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Alejandro Corichi, National Autonomous University of Mexico|, Mexico
 * Daniele Colosi, Instituto de Matemáticas - UNAM, Mexico
 * Louis Crane, Kansas State University, USA
 * Olaf Dreyer, Imperial College London, UK
 * Bianca Dittrich, Perimeter Institute, Canada
 * Christian Fleischhack, University of Hamburg, Germany
 * Laurent Freidel, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Rodolfo Gambini, Montevideo University, Uruguay
 * Florian Girelli, European Science Foundation, France
 * Kristina Giesel, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
 * Matthew Hogan, SM&T R&D Labs & Ohio University, USA
 * Viqar Husain, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Giorgio Immirzi, Universita' di Perugia & INFN Perugia, Italy
 * Christopher Isham, Imperial College London, UK
 * Jerzy Jurkiewicz, Jagiellonian University, Poland
 * Kirill Krasnov, University of Nottingham, UK
 * Tomasz Konopka, University of Waterloo and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Jerzy Lewandowski, Warsaw University, Poland
 * Etera Livine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France
 * Gerald Mahan, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Seth Major,Hamilton College, Clinton, NY, USA
 * Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Donald Marolf, University of California, USA
 * Merced Montesinos, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico
 * Hugo Morales-Tecotl, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, Mexico
 * Karim Noui, Universite Francois-Rabelais-Tours, France
 * Robert Oeckl, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico
 * Daniele Oriti, LMU, Germany
 * Alejandro Perez, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, USA
 * Tomasz Pawlowski, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Jorge Pullin, Louisiana State University, USA
 * Andrew Randono, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Michael Reisenberger, Montevideo University, Uruguay
 * Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, France
 * Hanno Sahlmann, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
 * David Sloan, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Simone Speziale, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Artem Starodubtsev, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
 * Daniel Sudarsky, Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM, Mexico
 * Thomas Thiemann, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
 * Bill Unruh, University of British Columbia, Canada
 * Yidun Wan, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
 * Edward Wilson-Ewing, Pennsylvania State University, USA
 * Oliver Winkler, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
 * José A. Zapata, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico

need to add affiliation and classify by subfield as far as possible


text:
Talk:List of loop quantum gravity researchers

* (cur) (last) 20:33, 3 April 2008 131.111.223.43 (Talk) (5,600 bytes) (prodded) (undo) * (cur) (last) 20:27, 3 April 2008 131.111.223.43 (Talk) (5,034 bytes) (rv longstanding vandalism) (undo) * (cur) (last) 08:36, 20 March 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) (5,093 bytes) (Rm self-link) (undo) * (cur) (last) 23:59, 18 March 2008 72.69.190.238 (Talk) (5,097 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 23:54, 18 March 2008 72.69.190.238 (Talk) (5,081 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 23:52, 18 March 2008 72.69.190.238 (Talk) (5,072 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 09:39, 25 February 2008 146.186.121.44 (Talk) (4,979 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 22:01, 13 February 2008 Nonunitary (Talk | contribs) (4,923 bytes) (some affiliations corrected) (undo) * (cur) (last) 09:43, 31 January 2008 Ibdkuisdw (Talk | contribs) m (4,908 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:41, 26 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) (4,909 bytes) (Adding External Links section to page.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:17, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,453 bytes) (Adding cross-references.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:01, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) (4,431 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:50, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,417 bytes) (Adding cross-references.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:42, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,262 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:39, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,238 bytes) (Cross-referenced university articles.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:28, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,207 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:13, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) (4,831 bytes) (Mr. Motl is not a loop quantum gravity researcher.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:09, 25 January 2008 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,877 bytes) (Full name was not restored when correcting mistake.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 16:54, 19 January 2008 Tenner47 (Talk | contribs) m (4,874 bytes) (Added " for Theoretical Physics" for one of the "Perimeter Institute" members) (undo) * (cur) (last) 14:38, 17 January 2008 134.154.243.160 (Talk) (4,850 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:52, 16 January 2008 Save-Me-Oprah (Talk | contribs) (4,785 bytes) (Previous edit did not need to be reverted; mistake on my part. I have given notice to the user however as editing of articles of personal affiliation should be avoided.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:48, 16 January 2008 Save-Me-Oprah (Talk | contribs) m (4,750 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 129.100.75.77 identified as vandalism to last revision by 71.58.64.44. (TW)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:47, 16 January 2008 129.100.75.77 (Talk) (4,785 bytes) (Adjust my name (Dan Christensen) and update my affiliation (University of Western Ontario)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:22, 26 December 2007 71.58.64.44 (Talk) (4,750 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 05:25, 18 December 2007 147.122.2.204 (Talk) (4,696 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:43, 14 December 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,605 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:25, 10 December 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,493 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 00:38, 8 December 2007 71.58.64.44 (Talk) (4,430 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 12:36, 7 December 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,359 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 15:16, 27 November 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,313 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:44, 25 November 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (4,257 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:00, 18 November 2007 Johnjacob1486 (Talk | contribs) (4,249 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 04:33, 16 November 2007 132.187.158.55 (Talk) (4,208 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:32, 15 November 2007 217.228.89.220 (Talk) (4,172 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:39, 5 November 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,117 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:38, 5 November 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,180 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:35, 5 November 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (4,117 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 09:27, 26 October 2007 217.228.64.107 (Talk) (4,062 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:59, 25 October 2007 141.34.19.39 (Talk) (4,004 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 05:08, 24 October 2007 132.187.158.55 (Talk) (3,974 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:12, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,914 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:11, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,913 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:10, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,914 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 18:07, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,987 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:55, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,796 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 17:22, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,084 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:41, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,072 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:38, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,036 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:37, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (2,922 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:35, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (2,858 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:32, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,068 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:30, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (3,070 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:12, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (2,739 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:03, 19 October 2007 Bayardo (Talk | contribs) m (2,783 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 08:35, 16 October 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (2,689 bytes) (Undid revision 163890065 by 146.186.121.46 (talk)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 14:01, 11 October 2007 146.186.121.46 (Talk) (2,668 bytes) (Undid revision 163888940 by 146.186.121.227 (talk)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:56, 11 October 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (2,689 bytes) (Undid revision 163888810 by 146.186.121.46 (talk)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:56, 11 October 2007 146.186.121.46 (Talk) (2,668 bytes) (Undid revision 163888653 by 146.186.121.227 (talk)) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:55, 11 October 2007 146.186.121.227 (Talk) (2,689 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 06:44, 4 October 2007 132.187.158.55 (Talk) (2,668 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 12:54, 17 August 2007 216.16.242.101 (Talk) (2,571 bytes) (undo) * (cur) (last) 09:58, 21 June 2007 KasugaHuang (Talk | contribs) m (1,977 bytes) (+ zh) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:15, 20 April 2007 81.190.44.190 (Talk) (1,935 bytes) (affiliation added) (undo) * (cur) (last) 03:22, 22 March 2007 139.124.7.178 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 16:45, 9 January 2007 Itinerant1 (Talk | contribs) m (undo) * (cur) (last) 04:59, 7 January 2007 Nunquam Dormio (Talk | contribs) (Sundance Bilson-Thompson) (undo) * (cur) (last) 14:36, 17 December 2006 65.110.28.193 (Talk) (Removed "José Antonio Zapata" from list, as the page directs to a mexican writer, not any physicist by this name.) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:10, 18 May 2006 Itinerant1 (Talk | contribs) (undo) * (cur) (last) 13:08, 26 April 2006 152.23.204.228 (Talk) (reverted revision by 167.206.60.60 to older version by Kymara) (undo) * (cur) (last) 07:21, 26 April 2006 167.206.60.60 (Talk) (undo) * (cur) (last) 04:43, 13 March 2006 Kymara (Talk | contribs) m (Previous John Barrett link was the wrong one, actual is redlinked) (undo) * (cur) (last) 10:00, 14 November 2005 Curpsbot-unicodify (Talk | contribs) m (1 & ; → Unicode) (undo) * (cur) (last) 11:21, 1 November 2005 IvanAndreevich (Talk | contribs) m (added Bill Unruh) (undo) * (cur) (last) 15:42, 17 July 2005 Reinyday (Talk | contribs) m (category move) (undo) * (cur) (last) 01:29, 11 April 2005 Bryan Derksen (Talk | contribs) m (Category:Lists of people) (undo) * (cur) (last) 05:17, 22 November 2004 Charles Matthews (Talk | contribs) (initial list from Loop quantum gravity page)
 * (cur) (last) 20:34, 3 April 2008 131.111.223.43 (Talk) (5,601 bytes) (sp) (undo)

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


text:
User talk:Dan Campbell

This should probably be expanded

Hello Dan, how about this ? :-) Welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Dan Campbell, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan Campbell


text:
Current, Similar, Subtask (CSS) and Criticality, Difficulty, Frequency (CDF) Models

Current, Similar, Subtask (CSS) and Criticality, Difficulty, Frequency (CDF) Models
Decision trees are a common instrument used to aid in decision making when selecting tasks and subtasks. Although they can be used for learning at all levels, they are probably better suited for tasks and subtasks that are in the lower domains. They are also used when an instrument is needed that is fast and easy to use. Decision trees allow the user to follow a predetermined path by answering a series of questions based on established principles or rules. Options and risks are designed into the tool so all the user has to do is answer the questions until a decision is reached. Decision trees are not normally modified by the end-user.

For this discussion, we will review two different decision trees:

CSS Model for Training Content Selection
This decision tree is often the first tool used when evaluating Task Analysis data. It is used to evaluate the target audience's previous experiences and determine if they are already capable of perfoming the same or simialar tasks. An important tenet in training adults is to avoid teaching somebody something they already know how to do. This decision tree is used to determine the trainee's experiences by asking a series of questions that require a yes or no answer.

 * Does the target audience currently perform the complete task?
 * Has the target audience performed a similar task in the past?
 * Have all the subtasks been evaluated?

DCF Model for Training Content Selection
Once it is determined that the trainee doesn't already know how to perform the task, the DCF Model is used to ask a series of questions to evaluate the difficulty, criticality and frequency for each of the tasks. The DCF Model uses a four tier decision tree to evaluate three main criteria: Difficulty Level, Criticality, and Frequency of Performance
 * Tier 1 evaluates the Difficulty Level. The task Difficulty Level is rated as being either High, Average, or Low
 * Tier 2 evaluates the Criticality. The task Criticality can be either Critical (Yes) or Not Critical (No)
 * Tier 3 evaluates the Frequency of Performance. When evaluating Frequency, you rate it as High, Average, or Low
 * Tier 4 is the decision level. There are three choices: to Train (T), Not train (NT), or Over Train (OT)

CSS Job Aid

 * [[Media:CSS_Flow_Chart.pdf | CSS Decision Tree for Training Content Selection]]
 * [[Media:CSS_Flow_Chart_Instructions.pdf | Instructions for using the CSS Decision Tree]]

 * [[Media:DCF_Flow_Chart.pdf | DCF Decision Tree for Training Content Selection]]
 * [[Media:DCF_Flow_Chart_Instructions.pdf | Instructions for using the DCF Decision Tree]]

Quiz
{A new task is being introduced in the workplace. It is very similar to an existing task already performed by the target population. Using CSS based only on this description, you would... - mark it as candidate for training. + integrate it with existing training. - not train. - Use DCF to determine if it should be trained.
 * type=""}

{You establish that the target population does not know how to perform a task. The next step is... - to mark it as candidate for training. - to integrate it with existing training. - not train. + Use DCF to determine if it should be trained.
 * type=""}

{What are the three possible determinations produced by the DCF model? +Train -Review +No Train +Overtrain -Job Aid -Integrate -Familiarize
 * type="[]"}

{Your SME has determined that a task is of average difficulty, not critical, and is of average frequency. What is the determination? -Train -Review +No Train -Overtrain -Job Aid -Integrate -Familiarize
 * type="[]"}

{If a task is performed infrequently, is it more or less likely to need training? +More likely -less likely
 * type="[]"}


text:
User talk:Holly~enwikiversity

Hello Holly, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Holly, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Holly. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Holly~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Holly~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Harpreet

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Harpreet, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harpreet


text:
User talk:Chanwai4

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Chanwai4, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chanwai4


text:
User talk:Sutandie

Hello, welcome around here. I hope you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Sutandie, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sutandie


text:
Design for the Environment/Hydrogen Generation Methods

Hydrogen has been seen as one of the most suitable alternative energy source, and many researches and developments are being conducted in improving the production efficiency and production cost for hydrogen. However, it has been studied that while a generation method brings high production efficiency, it also brings many negative environment impacts. Therefore, being able to determine a balance between production cost and environmental cost is essential in making hydrogen generation method decision. In here three different hydrogen generation methods are introduced and analyzed: Steam [Methane Reforming - currently the most common way of generating hydrogen, it generates hydrogen through steams and methane, has a very high production efficiency as well as high pollutant release. Electrolysis - is also commercially used, hydrogen is produced by splitting water molecules through a reaction process with the electrically conducted special metal, this hydrogen generation process releases less pollutants, but also has a lower production efficiency. Photocatalytic Water Splitting - which is a hydrogen generation method that is still in the research stage, this method also produce hydrogen by splitting the water molecule, but it uses solar energy as its reaction energy source, it has very low pollutant release and poor production rate. Analysis and comparison are performed based on the following topics: Functional Analysis: Introduced the techniques used and background to these different hydrogen generation methods, its advantage and disadvantage are also discussed. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA): Each hydrogen generation methods’ environmental impacts over its lifecycle and supply chain are analyzed. Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (S-LCA): Detail environmental impact during the production process for each hydrogen generation methods were analyzed and given a score matrix consist of 25 topics. Each matrix was given a score from 0 to 4, where a higher score means more environmental friendly, and explanation to the score determination. Cost Analysis: Life cycle cost, financial analysis, and indirect costs of each method are performed. Societal Analysis: Qualitative analysis on other issues that do not belong to the categories described above; such as noises, public preferences and values...etc. Data and information acquired for the analysis above are as if these three hydrogen generation plants are all based in Arizona, USA, at where has the highest sun absorbance across United States. United States was chosen because many of the information and data on these hydrogen generation technologies and analysis tools (EIOLCA, S-LCA) are US based.

 Project Information

Section 02: Group 9B

 Group members  Yu-Hao Tseng (howard12f) Tsz Yeung Lo (travislo) Arthur Cheuk (arthurcheuk) Denushka Sarathchandra (Sarathc2)

Highlights and Recommendations
Based on the five analyses summary of these three hydrogen generation methods, a score matrix is given below, where each score is assigned based on its performance within each category.

Steam Methane Reforming, with easy access, cheap methane supply, and its high hydrogen production rate – 83%; a lot higher in comparison with the 50%, and 12% from Electrolysis, and Photochemical Water Splitting; scored full point even though it produces large amount of CO2 and other pollutant during its chemical reaction for generating hydrogen. Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting produce hydrogen through similar chemical reaction of re-usable special metals and water, results in a much cleaner production process. Therefore, at this stage, Steam Methane Reforming is considered the ideal generation method due to its high efficiency; however it ties with Electrolysis when the process by-product is taken into account. Photochemical Water Splitting stays at bottom due to its uncertainty in the improvement of its low production efficiency. EIOLCA comparison chart

Through EIOLCA on the three hydrogen generation methods, Steam Methane Reforming method produces large amount of Conventional Air Pollutant and Greenhouse gases in comparison to Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting. This high pollution is mostly contributed from its production technique, high dependency on fossil fuel – methane, which is a high pollution process. As for toxic release, these three methods have shown similar value because toxic release is mostly caused by the construction stage of the generation plant and apparatus, instead of the production process, which is not different from one another. High energy for SMR is due to its delivery and transport of input energy, and its operation; since Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting production materials are re-usable. Therefore, it is the production process operation itself that makes the difference between each generation methods, and the preparation work is not much different in terms of environmental impact. Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting are a better generation method based on EIOLCA.

In Streamlined LCA, Photochemical Water Splitting ranked 1st in terms of its environmental impact, with an overall scoring of 78, higher than the 74 from Electrolysis, and the 41 from Steam Methane Reforming. Steam Methane Reforming scored only slightly more than half of Photochemical Water Splitting method was not surprising due to its production process ; although Steam Methane Reforming scored poorly in all sectors, its Material Choice and Gaseous Residue scored lowest due to the fact that its fossil fuel – methane based, and its large release of CO2. Primary and complementary process operation also scored relatively low because most of the pollutants are released during these two phases. Electrolysis scored very closely with Photochemical Water Splitting because their production technology is very similar, mainly relies on the splitting of water molecules; and materials used in process operation are both recyclable. However, since Photochemical Water Splitting uses solar energy as its main power to run the operation, it ended up with a final score slightly above Electrolysis.

Through Cost Analysis, annual operation cost (construction cost included) for each of the three hydrogen generation methods: Steam Methane Reforming, Electrolysis, and Photochemical Water Splitting were determined to be around US$ 60 million, US$ 65 million, and US$ 110 million. These values were calculated based on building and operating the hydrogen generation plant in Arizona, USA. With Steam Methane Reforming being the most economic, then electrolysis, and then Photochemical water splitting.

For societal impact, Steam Methane Reforming scored lower than the other two methods only because its high release of pollutants during its production process can be a potential threat to the plant workers' health.

According to this summarized scoring matrix, Steam Methane Reforming method provides highly efficient and economic production while making large amount of environmental damage; Electrolysis provides good but yet to improve efficiency and cost, and very little environmental impact; Photochemical Water Splitting provides poor production efficiency and expensive production cost, and very little environmental impact. Therefore, from the final scoring when making a balance between economic production and environmental impact, Electrolysis is the most suitable hydrogen generation method.

Steam Methane Reforming Process
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) produces hydrogen in which a reactor with a catalyst is treated with steam promoting partial oxidations reactions and hydrogen production.

It consists of 3 stages:

1.Reformation of natural gas: Steam reacts with methane (CH4) at 750-800 oC to produce synthesis gas [1], which is a mixture of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2)

2.Shift reaction: Water gas shift (WGS) reaction is carried out; the steam reacts with the CO produced in first step over a catalyst to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Two stages are involved: High temperature shift (HTS) at 350 oC and Low temperature shift (LTS) at 190-210 oC [2].

3.Purification: Small quantities of improprieties such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide are included in the hydrogen produced, thus several purification procedures are required. The procedures are Feedstock purification – remove poisons, including chloride and sulphur. Product purification – CO2 is removed in a liquid absorption system. 99.99% pure product hydrogen is produced [1].

Electrolysis
Electrolysis is a chemical reaction that involves electricity as an energy source to pass through and break down a compound molecule in an aqueous solution. A power supply is connected to positive and negative electrodes which are called anode and cathode respectively. Electrode is a metal plate that conducts electricity and has contact with the electrolysed solution. The U-tube is then filled with water (H2O) to complete to circuit [3]. However, pure water does not conduct electricity. Salt (NaCl), function as an electrolyte, is added into water simply because it contains free ions that allows conduction of electricity [4].

Electrons release from the cathode and react with hydrogen ions and form hydrogen gas bubble at cathode. Similarly, oxygen ions release its electrons to anode and from oxygen gas bubble at anode. Both gaseous are collected in the tube. The reaction between water and the electrodes is not a single step equation. Instead, it includes a few reactions which are called Redox reaction [5].

Photocatalytic Water Splitting
Photocatalytic hydrogen production utilizes solar energy to produce hydrogen by splitting water molecules. In 1972, Japanese scientists Fujishima and Honda discovered that a photocatalyst such as titanium oxide can be used under ultraviolet (UV) light in order to produce hydrogen [6]. However, the process was extreme inefficient and could only utilize UV light which accounts for only 5% of total solar energy. Driven by increasing demand for renewable energy, the field of photochemical hydrogen production has seen rapid development in the past decade. Scientists have now developed processes that are capable of producing hydrogen using both UV and visible spectrum of light at efficiencies that are deemed acceptable in this field. Unlike conventional fossil fuel based methods, photochemical processes do not produce C02 as a byproduct. Therefore it has minimal affect on the environment. In addition, hydrogen produced through photochemical water splitting can be considered as a fully renewable source of energy due to its sole dependence on solar energy. However, the production rate and efficiency tends to be lower than other conventional methods.

Details on Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)
Analysis was performed on [www.eiolca.net http://www.eiolca.net]

Steam Methane Reforming
Economic Input and Output Life Cycle Assessment is another approach to assess the environmental impact of hydrogen producing using Steam Methane reforming method. Natural gas is the primarily material for steam methane reforming, thus the natural gas distribution sector (#221200) is used as an EIOLCA model. The cost of natural gas required to produce hydrogen in a SMR plant is $18391711 (from cost analysis), thus this amount is entered in the EIOLCA for analysis.

Conventional Air Pollutants: The most significant air pollution is VOC (80.9%), which is due to the combustion sources in refinery. A high level of NOx is emitted in natural gas distribution as well, as it was produced during combustion. Power generation and supply and oil gas extraction shows a moderate level of SO2, CO, NOx, VOC and particulates emissions. These activities closely interact with the natural gas distribution as these are all processes in oil refinery. Cement is required to construct the infrastructure for the refinery wells; it is also needed in extraction process to prevent leakage in gas wells. It can be concluded that the mining and refinery process are the main factors of the emission of air pollutants.

Greenhouse Gases: Methane is one of the major components in natural gas. It is, the sole material that is needed for SMR. However, some methane leaks during the production and transportation process, which contributes most to the total methane emission. Pipeline transportation also gives a significant contribution to total greenhouse gas emission, as leakage occurs during transportation and the trucks emit some greenhouse gas as well.

Toxic Releases: Land releases and air releases are the two major toxic releases for natural gas distribution. Oil and gas extraction also contributes most to these releases. This is resulted from the contaminated solid residue during the mining process and the release of toxic chemical substances in the refinery process. Toxics are emitted during high temperature and the reaction between the chemical substances. Liquid residues are mostly water which is extracted from the natural gas and being disposed.

Energy: Pipeline transportation and natural gas distribution consume most energy (37% and 22.5% respectively), showing that the process is extremely energy intensive.

Electrolysis
The manufacturing stage of hydrogen is the main focus of how much environmental impact it does. In this case, electrolysis is the manufacturing process that was looked into. Using the data model in www.ieoica.net, electrolysis of hydrogen is under Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing sector (#325180). The economic activity was raised to 62.4M USD which is the direct cost of the electrolysis plant.

SO2, CO and NOx are the major focus of the air pollutants because there are significant values of output for some sectors. Power generation and supply sector releases the most SO2 and NOX. This is because generating electricity requires combustion of fuel which forms Sulphur dioxide and Nitrogen monoxide. Another major release of SO2 comes from other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing sector. A lot of chemical reactions require heat to speed up the reaction rate and SO2 is formed from incomplete combustion of fuel. Truck transportation sector releases the most CO since incomplete combustion of fuel in automobile release large amount of carbon monoxide.

The most greenhouse gas emission is CO2. As mention previously in air pollutant emission analysis, producing inorganic chemicals and generating electricity require energy from combustion of fusel fuel, and this releases a large amount of CO2. Therefore, other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing and power generation and supply release the most CO2.

The majority of the toxic are Land releases which is formed mostly from Copper, nickel, lead and zinc mining. Metal mining creates tons of waste rocks and dust which counts as land releases. The percentage of land releases from mining is relatively large, about 77% of the total. The second majority, other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing, releases 9% of the total land releases.

The most significant air pollution is VOC (80.9%), which is due to the combustion sources in refinery. A high level of NOx is emitted in natural gas distribution as well, as it was produced during combustion. Power generation and supply and oil gas extraction shows a moderate level of SO2, CO, NOx, VOC and particulates emissions. These activities closely interact with the natural gas distribution as these are all processes in oil refinery. Cement is required to construct the infrastructure for the refinery wells; it is also needed in extraction process to prevent leakage in gas wells. From the above data, it can be concluded that the mining and refinery process are the main factors of the emission of air pollutants.

Photochemical Water Splitting
Photochemical hydrogen production is still in the research stage of development, thus it not possible to determine the exact cost of photochemical hydrogen production facility. Therefore Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIOLCA) was performed on a per million dollars of activity basis. The million dollars was divided amongst nine EIOLCA sectors, where Semiconductors and related device manufacturing and Scientific research and development services sectors contributed to 45% of the economic activity.

According to The EIOLCA results, the heavily coal based US power generation sector was responsible for the most SO2 and NOx releases. However, the truck transportation sector which is known for high tailpipe emissions released the most CO and VOCs. Steel production and Power generation sectors were tied for the top producer of greenhouse gases position with a GPW of 267 each as both of these processes release large amounts CO2 into to the atmosphere. Synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing sector which is responsible for the production of titanium oxide was another major contributor of greenhouse gases with 107 GWP. Ferroalloy and related product manufacturing sector was responsible the most non-point air, total air and water releases. However, primary nonferrous metal sector was the largest producer of point air toxic releases. Copper, nickel, lead and zinc mining sector produced highest land releases. Production of electronic equipment and air compressors units are probably responsible for the appearance of the last two sectors.

Steam Methane Reforming
The resource provisioning stage, primarily is the natural gas extraction, requires large amount of energy as well as many toxic substances are emitted in gaseous, liquid and solid form. Natural gas is as well not renewable. Besides, acid gases are emitted during oil refinery, which has adverse effects to the environment.

For process implementation stage, the analysis is towards the construction of the hydrogen generating plant. It is rather similar to other constructions and plant implementations, thus a low score of 9 is given in this process as constructions produces lots of wastes. However, there are some regulations such as Construction Dust Rules, which lowers the dust emission due to construction and hence improving the air quality near the plant.

In primary process operation, Carbon monoxide is produced in the first stage of SMR. CO is an odourless gas that is extremely toxic thus a score of zero is given for gas residue due to the degree of harmfulness of CO.

For complementary process operation, the main concern is the amount of emission of CO2. Mass of CO2 emitted is 2.51 times greater than that of hydrogen. CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, thus a low score is given for the process [8].

For Refurbishment, Recycling, Disposal, methanation is carried out to remove residues of carbon oxides, which is the major residues of the SMR. The demolishment of the plant contributes to all of solid, liquid and gaseous residue, thus low scores are given for these criteria.

Electrolysis
Resource Provisioning: Water is the major material in generating hydrogen. The supply of water is unlimited because there are a lot of major rivers in Arizona Besides adding salt into water, there is no further preparation of the water. The formation of salt requires solar energy to evaporate water and transportation of salt requires energy. The packaging of salt is the solid residue. They are made of plastic bag which are reusable. There are, liquid residues formed during evaporation of seawater. Steam is not toxic or radioactive Furthermore, evaporation of water happens all over the ocean.

Process Implementation: The extraction of the metal such as titanium is complex and required expensive metals to extract.Energy use for steel extraction is very high due to a large amount of heat energy is required to form steel. Installation of the equipment required large amount of energy since the equipment is relatively huge for mass production of hydrogen. In the extraction of titanium, there are many unwanted liquid and solid residues are formed in the process. Greenhouse gaseous such as NOx and SOx are also formed.

Primary Process Operation: Saltwater is electrolyzed and decomposed. It cannot be reused or recycled but it is not toxic or radioactive. A low voltage supply can activate the reaction of electrolysis. No energy is required when the manufacturing facility powers down. Oxygen gas is the by-product which is not a greenhouse gas or toxic.

Complementary Process Operation: Magnesium is used to form magnesium hydrides and store hydrogen in solid form. Magnesium can be recycled and reused to form hydride in the next cycle and this makes a close loop cycle.Energy used in packaging and transportation includes filling the hydrides into the tanks and loading the tanks on the trucks.

Refurbishment, Recycling, Disposal: All of the equipments that are made of steel and titanium are reusable and recyclable. The copper wires, glass tubes and tanks are also reusable; therefore it was assigned a perfect score.Energy used to refurbish and recycle steel is minimized

Photochemical Water Splitting
Resource Provisioning: The main resources for such a plant would only include water. Since water is abundant in nature a perfect score was given. A perfect score was also given to energy use as solar energy is abundant and the amount of energy used in a plant is insignificant compared to the total incident energy. Residues were given perfect scores as oxygen is the lone byproduct of the process.

Process Implementation: Primary materials required for a plant would include glass, titanium oxide, plastic, and steel, all of which are abundant in nature. A score of three was given to as these materials would probably be virgin. A score of zero was given to energy use as the production of glass as steel and mining of titanium oxide are all highly energy intensive processes. Solid residues was also given a zero as mining of titanium oxide and other raw material for production of steel and glass creates vast amounts of solid residues. A score of one was given to liquid and solid residues as glass production creates liquid residues while steel production produces NOx, SOx, and VOCs.

Process Operation: Material choice is given a perfect score since only water is consumed during the process. Energy use was also given perfect score as production is controlled through software. The primary process does not create any residues as oxygen; the only byproduct from the process is not considered as harmful emission. However, hydrogen cells require cleaning. Therefore a score of three was given to liquid residues while perfect scores were given to solid and gaseous residues.

Complementary Process Operation: Complementary process in a hydrogen plant is the storage of hydrogen. This process does not require material input, however it requires a large amount of energy. Therefore material choice was given a four while energy use only received a two. The compression process does not create any residues and a score of four was given to all residues accordingly.

Refurbishment, Recycling, Disposal: Material choice received perfect score of four as glass, plastic, and steel which accounts for most of the primary material needed in the process are recyclable. However, energy use was given a one as glass and steel components are high density material which requires a large amount of energy to transport. Solid residues was given a three as components such as titanium oxide films would not be recycled. There are no notable liquid or gaseous residues from hydrogen cells. Therefore a score of four was given.

Details on Cost Analysis
The cost is varied between each hydrogen plant. According to The Hydrogen Plant Challenge, the costs components vary for different plant size. For the scope of this project, a typical hydrogen plant size of 90 mmscfd is used as it is considered to have more environmental impact [13]. In addition, a reasonable assumption is made to estimate the costs of a hydrogen generation plant as stated in Hydrocarbon Engineering. An annual production of approximately 72000 tons, or 200 tons per day.

Steam Methane Reforming
The overall hydrogen production cost could be estimated over the life of the hydrogen plant, including the construction, operation and maintenance phase of the hydrogen plant. The major operating cost is the utility costs, including generation of export steam, power, fuel, boiler feed water and cooling water where fuel and feed contribute most to the utility costs. It is noticeable that the utility cost could be lowered if the refinery utility costs are favourable of steam production. Other costs such as capital cost, start up cost, operating costs (including replacement costs) and maintenance costs are also needed to be considered in the life cycle. Since the natural gas price fluctuates, it is impossible to obtain the actual natural gas price, so only an estimate is given.

The following is the summary of the direct costs based on calculations using Capital Recovery Factor= 0.054047 and Annualized cost = 0.41697 calculated from future costs for catalyst tube replacement at 10th and 20th year

Indirect costs:

Indirect costs are comprised of costs arising from hydrogen production by SMR such as pollution cost and healthcare cost. However, it is impossible to quantify the indirect costs caused by the operation of a hydrogen plant using SMR method. For instance, generation of hydrogen also produces large amount of Carbon dioxide, which adversely affects the environment, which add costs to the pollution and healthcare. Besides, the extraction of natural gas also contributes to pollution, which also adds costs. However, when hydrogen is produced, some industries such as automobiles may use hydrogen as an energy source and decrease the use of other source such as diesel or gas, and it reduces the pollution and consequently reduces the pollution and healthcare costs. As these costs is relatively hard to quantify and relatively small compared to the direct costs, so it is not included in the total costs.

Electrolysis
Direct cost: Direct cost of a hydrogen electrolysis plant includes construction cost, installation cost, equipment cost, labour cost, fuel cost and maintenance cost. The land cost and construction cost of the plant is estimated to be 35.6Million USD. The cost of major equipment is approximately 8.26M USD. Labour cost is 3.98M per year and fuel cost is 2M per year [16]. Assuming the maintenance cost is 2% of the plant cost per year, which is about 0.712M USD. The initial construction cost and equipment cost was converted into annual cost using Effective Interest Rate of 2.631% and Capital- Recovery Factor of 0.054047. The total direct cost per year is 62.4M USD.

Indirect cost: Indirect costs are classified as Health cost of the workers and Environmental cost such as release of greenhouse gaseous and toxic gaseous.

Photochemical Water Splitting
As previously mentioned a complete cost analysis of photochemical hydrogen production can not be performed as the technology has not been implemented to date. One can assume that the capital cost of a plant would be somewhat similar to the cost of a photovoltaic (PV) power plant. However, direct comparison can not be made as a unit of electricity is not comparable to a quantity of hydrogen.

In order to obtain a capital cost of the facility it is assumed PV electricity is used in an electrolysis process to produce hydrogen. With an approximate PV cost of $2.73 million per 1MV of electricity and 2.4MV per ton of hydrogen/day electrolysis energy efficiency, the capital cost of hydrogen is calculated to be $6.55 million per 1 ton of hydrogen per day. Therefore a plant producing 200 tons of hydrogen per day would cost approximately $1.3 billion. If an interest rate of 5% and plant life of 30 years is used, the equivalent annual cost is calculated to be $85 million [19].

The operating and maintenance cost of the plant can be calculated using similar assumptions. With an operating and maintenance cost of $46.16/KW/year for PV plants, the hydrogen plant mentioned above would cost $22 million per year. The cost of fuel for a photochemical hydrogen plant is negligible. Therefore total direct cost of the hydrogen plant is $107 million per year.

Photochemical hydrogen plant of this magnitude requires a large amount land. The loss of natural habitat and farm lands due to the construction of the plant could be considered as indirect costs. However, if the plant is constructed on a desert these costs can be minimized.

Details on Societal Analysis
All three hydrogen generation alternatives showed common societal impact when operating in residential or urban areas. Impacts includes aesthetic disapproval, concerns on hydrogen cell explosion, pollutant release from SMR and plant construction, and noises; which is likely to cause dispute between civilians with the local government and company if a plant is going to be build and operate. If these hydrogen generation plant were to be build in rural areas, Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting would results very little societal impact; however, since SMR production process is not pollutant free, workers in the plant must be concerned about their health issues. Therefore, in terms of societal impact, Electrolysis and Photochemical Water Splitting are a better generation process.


text:
User:Hersfold

I am an administrator on the English Language Wikipedia, and have mainly created this account to make sure it was claimed through Single Unified Login. Please see my main user page at w:en:User:Hersfold.

title: User:Hersfold


text:
User:Theyoungeone

I'm a student in my first year of mechanical engineering at Southampton university.

title: User:Theyoungeone


text:
User talk:Hersfold

Messages left for me here will probably not be read. If you must edit here, go ahead, but please also leave me a link at w:en:User talk:Hersfold as well. Thanks! Hersfold 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hersfold


text:
User talk:Theyoungeone

Welcome
Hello Theyoungeone, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Theyoungeone


text:
File:Eldorino Thumbnail Storyboard frame.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding


text:
File:Eldorino Thumbnail Storyboard.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding

title: File:Eldorino Thumbnail Storyboard.jpg


text:
File:Vikram Acharya Thumbnail Storyboard frame.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding


text:
File:Vikram Acharya Thumbnail Storyboard.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding


text:
User:Jonathan Webley/vocab

 Return to Lesson 999

Translate these words into English The answers are case insensitive. { ba' { sit (i) }
 * type="{}"}

Translate these words into Klingon The answers must be in the correct case for Klingon (lowercase a, uppercase D, etc). { woman { be' }
 * type="{}"}

 Return to Lesson 999

title: User:Jonathan Webley/vocab


text:
User:Jonathan Webley/KE template

 Return to Lesson 999

Translate these phrases into English

 * Guidelines for answers

{ qet loD { the man runs (i) | a man runs (i) | the man is running (i) | a man is running (i) _30 }
 * type="{}"}

 Return to Lesson 999

title: User:Jonathan Webley/KE template


text:
Klingon/lesson2/EK

 Return to Lesson 2

Translate these sentences into Klingon

 * Guidelines for answers

{ He runs. { qet _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ I am not sitting. { jIba'be' _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ You (sing) walk. { bIyIt _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ Mara is standing. { Qam mara _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ Mogh is not sitting. { ba'be' mogh _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ She sits. { ba' _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The boy does not walk. { yItbe' loDHom _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ We speak. { majatlh _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ You (plural) stand. { SuQam _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The girl is speaking. { jatlh be'Hom _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The man stands. { Qam loD _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The woman is not walking. { yItbe' be' _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ She says. { jatlh _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The woman speaks. { jatlh be' _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ Torgh is standing. { Qam torgh _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The man walks. { yIt loD _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ We walk. { mayIt _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ You (plural) are running. { Suqet _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The boy runs. { qet loDHom _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ You (sing) sit. { bIba' _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ The girl is not running. { qetbe' be'Hom _30 }
 * type="{}"}

{ I am speaking. { jIjatlh _30 }
 * type="{}"}

 Return to Lesson 2

title: Klingon/lesson2/EK


text:
User:Jonathan Webley/EK template

 Return to Lesson 999

Translate these sentences into Klingon

 * Guidelines for answers

{ He runs. { qet _30 }
 * type="{}"}

 Return to Lesson 999

title: User:Jonathan Webley/EK template


text: Category:Units of measurement

title: Category:Units of measurement


text:
User talk:Saguna

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you to succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Saguna, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saguna


text:
User talk:Palmarcus

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you to succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Palmarcus, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Palmarcus


text:
User talk:Travislo

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you to succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Travislo, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Travislo


text:
Collect and identify plants

The tools of identification are relatively few and simple and are relatively unchanged for the last 200 years- except the zip lock bags. The following tools are part of the field kit, which also includes tools and equipment for specimen collection. Photographs are also a great way to start identifying plants, and doesn't involve any damage to the organism (unless you trample it while taking its photo). Besides comparing your photos to others online or in books, there are also a number of online resources to help you identify your plant in question by plant aficionados throughout the world, and all you need to do is upload yours:

 * Plant Identification Public Group on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/156706504394635/
 * University of British Columbia Botanical Forum http://forums.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/forums/plants-identification.38/

If collecting plants instead of just taking photographs, try to do the least amount of damage as possible to the plant and keep in mind the population as a whole. If there are only 5 plants and you dig up 2, then there is a real problem with the long term survival for that population of plants that you've caused. Also if collecting whole specimens make sure that the plant is dying for a good cause. Don't just dig them up, identify them and throw them away. Press them, label them and have plans to send your plant collection to a local university with a herbarium in your area so that others can learn and study them too.

Identification Tool Kit
 * Field guide with keys to plants of the region
 * A hand lens, to examine plants at close range
 * A metric ruler, to measure leaves and other small features
 * Ziplock bags to take specimens back to your house for further study and/or to be pressed

Botanists used to carry around a vasculum- metal boxes to hold their plant specimens in temporarily until they were able to get back to their much heavier plant presses, but today we just use plastic bags. If you leave air in the bag and tie it up or zip it shut, it also helps to protect the plant from being damaged by being transported. Heat can wilt specimens rather quickly, so it is best to either study/press them immediately or have a cooler to put them in in very hot conditions. Wilted and crushed plants make for poor herbarium specimens- you might damage key taxonomic features as well, so it is best to keep them as fresh as possible.

Other recommendations for any botanical expedition (outside of your backyard) include:
 * Sunscreen
 * First Aid Kit including an emergency reflective blanket or mummy bag
 * Broad Brimmed Hat
 * Sturdy walking shoes
 * Backpack
 * Lunch
 * Map and compass (often places you find wild plants in don't have cell phone coverage and you still don't want to trust Google Maps with your life)
 * Headlamp

Recommendations for in house identification:
 * tweezers
 * dissecting scope

Links for more information

 * How to Collect, Press and Mount Plants from the Montana State University Extension Office: - http://store.msuextension.org/publications/agandnaturalresources/mt198359ag.pdf
 * How to Identify Plants in the Field from the American Museum of Natural History - https://www.amnh.org/explore/curriculum-collections/biodiversity-counts/plant-identification/how-to-identify-plants-in-the-field/
 * Pickling Plants- How to Collect and Preserve Plants for Identification from the University of Wyoming - http://www.uwyo.edu/barnbackyard/_files/documents/magazine/2010/summer/plant-preservation-summer-2010.pdf
 * Herbarium Supply- http://herbariumsupply.com/

title: Collect and identify plants


text:
Template:Bloom clock global-temperate box

 Regional matches for this key:


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/October


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/November


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/September


text:
Template:Bcp-gtdpl

==Test for in ==

Usage
This template creates a series of DPL-generated tables for comparing bloom data from one region to the global temperate seasons.

Notes:
 * 1) For "Region category series = ", enter only the all-caps region code (do not include the "BCP" prefix or "Category:").

title: Template:Bcp-gtdpl


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/August


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/July


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/New Hampshire/Global Comparison Worksheet/December


text:
Haifa mgsb: homework

This page is an experiment in student generated answers to homework questions. In Markets, Games, and Strategic Behavior, we covered a diverse number of topics. The lecturer will pose a question and the students will provide the answer(s). Feel free to improve on other students' answers, put alternate answers and pose new questions. Feel free to clarify the questions as well.

Question 1
Take from class, the Diamond Dybvig model with $$L=.5 $$ and $$R=2 $$, two impatient depositors and two patient depositors. Each depositor has $1000 to deposit in the bank. Let us say that deposits are insured up to fraction $$f $$. For what values of $$ f $$ is there only one equilibrium and what values are there two equilibria? (For each dollar put in the bank yesterday, early withdrawers are guaranteed to get $$1*f$$ and late get $$2*f$$.)

Answer 1
The bank expects the two impatient depositors to withdraw today and the two patient depositors to withdraw tomorrow. Hence, yesterday, the bank sets aside $2000 for today and invests $2000 for tomorrow. Now today, the depositors must decide whether to withdraw today or tomorrow. We assume that the impatient depositors withdraw today. Now We can examine this as a game between the two patient depositors. Each has to decide whether or not to withdraw today. When $$ f=0 $$ the payoffs as discussed in class.

For a general $$f $$, we must calculate again each of the payoffs. If both withdraw today, the bank can pay the first 3 depositors the $1000. The last depositor will receive $$f $$. Thus, the expected payoff is $$ 750+(f/4)*1000 $$. If one withdraws today and the other withdraws tomorrow, the bank will be able to pay all three today, and the depositor withdrawing tomorrow receives $$ 2000*f$$. Rewriting the game yields.

We see that if one patient depositor withdraws today, the second patient depositor only has incentive to withdraw today if $$ 750+1000*(f/4)>=2000*f $$. Hence, if and only if $$f<=3/7 $$, there is a possibility of two equilibria.

 Question about this solution-

You claimed that if all four people want the money today three will get 1000$ and the fourth will get 1000f. This means, that at the point in which all four people want the money today the bank has 3000+1000f dollars to give. However, the bank has only 3000$ to give. How does this fit into your solution?

Todd's response

Great question! I should probably have mentioned the insurance is from outside the bank. This is true for any case that I know of where deposits are insured. In the US most deposits are insured by the FDIC (Federal deposit Insurance Corporation). Hence, the 1000*f comes from this outside source.

Another Question Please According to the solution the insurance is per group but could it be per person?(so that the compensation ratios change but not the way of solving)

Todd's response Sorry, I don't understand the question. Do you mean that two different depositors may have two different insurance schemes? For instance, I would be insured up to 100%, but you up to 90%.

Question 2
Part A.

Examine the second treatment of the Beer-Quiche game where there is a 2/3 chance of the proposer being strong.

Payoffs: Proposer, Responder

Can there be a pooling equilibrium where both proposers choose Quiche and the responder flees? Does this seem reasonable to you? Qustion please We dont understand the question, can you please explain? (according to the homework question the pooling equilibrium should be when both proposers choose beer and the responder flees)

I'm not Tod but i'll try and explain- a pooling equilibrium is an equilibrium in which both the weak type and the strong type both choose the same signal, and by doing so there is no signalling.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Part B.

Assume the odds of a strong hand is 80%. Find any equilibrium. Is it signalling or pooling? Extra hard: what happens if it is 60%?

Answer 2
Part A.

Beer-Quiche game

All in all there can be such a pooling equilibrium. It can happen if the responder thinks that people drink beer are weak.

However, this is not a reasonable equilibrium because there is no reason for someone who is strong to do so because he is better off drinking beer.

Qustion to Todd Do you mean that we need to change the data in order to get Quich Polling equilibrium or the qustion is can we have Quich Polling equilibrium under this data? Part B.

Question: Is the solution for Homework Question (simplified poker) is that A choses Raise and B choses Call? So that the equilobrium are: (2, -2), (-2, 2)? If not, can you explain how to get to the right answer?

Todd's response

This can't be an equilibrium since if B chooses to call, then A would not raise if A has a weak hand.

What is an equilibrium (I hope) is that A (always) raises and B (always) folds. In such a case, B gets -$1.00. If B decides to call, the payoff would be .8 times the payoff from a strong type -$2.00 plus .2 times the payoff of from a weak type $2.00. This equals .8*(-2)+.2*2=-1.2. This is less than -1 so B would never call. Note that A earns $1 from raising. This is better than the $-1 from folding.

Also, if the probability is 60% rather than 80%, .6(-2)+.4*2=-.4, then B has an incentive to raise. But what I said above, A raising and B calling can't be an equilibrium. My new question to you is can separating be an equilibrium?

Another Question:

hey Todd. i dont understand why A raises and B folds cant be an equilibrium in part B? we know that the payoff for player A will be in such case 0.6*2-0.4*2=0.4 A know's that if he will fold in case of a weak hand he will be punished by player B when he have a strong hand (B chooses to fold and payoff for A is 1 instead of 2).

In case of separating equilibrium A choses to raise if he has strong hand and B choses to fold. if A has weak hand A choses to fold and B choses to Call. the payoff for player A will be 0.6*1-1*0.4=0.2 I think its not reasonable solution cause player A have incentive to chose to raise allways, payoff is 1 in this scenario. 1>0.2 but now player B prefer to fold and pay 0.4<1.

can you please tell me where is my mistake?

Todd's response to another question

Judging from you explanation, I think you mean to ask "I dont understand why A raising and B calling can't be an equilibrium in part B when the probability is 60%?"

If so, this is a great question! What you are doing is examining the game where player A chooses the strategy before knowing his information. In economics, we call this commitment power. You are assuming that A can commit what he will do when he has a strong hand or weak hand. Usually with signalling, we assume that the game is a one-shot game and hence player A would not have any commitment power. This was the case with in our experiment where matching each time was different. By doing so, we must look at the best decision for Player A when he has a strong hand separate from the best decision for Player A when he has a weak hand. (You may debate whether or not this is the best way to model poker.) By doing so, player A raising and B calling can't be an equilibrium since A would never raise when he is weak.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I think that the answer is: When A is strong he will raise and B will fold. When A is weak he will fold and B can raise or fold. So we can say that B always fold.

Another Question:

in 60% is the answer - if A is strong - raise and B call, if A is weak - fold and B call ???

Todd's response

The problem is that B won't call if a strong A is the only one raising.

Todd's answer

It may be easier for me to explain what happens. It is called partial pooling. All the strong A players raise and some of the weak A players do. B players only some times call. Since weak A's and B players are mixing their strategies they must be indifferent between the two. For a weak A to be indifferent, he knows that by folding he would get -1. If B calls c fraction of the time he would get c*(-2)+(1-c)*1. Therefore, -1=c*(-2)+(1-c)*1 or c=2/3. If a weak A raises r fraction of the time, the odds of a strong A are .6/(.6+.4*r). Thus, for B to be indifferent $$(-2)\frac{.6}{.6+.4*r}+(2)(1-\frac{.6}{.6+.4*r})=-1$$ This yields r=.5.

So the equilibrium is a strong A raises, a weak A bluffs (raises) 50% of the time and folds the other 50%, B calls 2/3 of the time and folds the other 1/3. You would not be required to understand partial pooling for the exam, though it is a good sign if you do.

Question 3
In each of the treatments of our classroom experiment, were there two equilibria? In each, how many would have to withdraw for you to have the dominant strategy to withdraw as well (always want to withdraw)? Under what parameters do you think we will get a bank run? Why?

todd can you please slove this question?

Answer 3
We really only made it through one treatment so I would analyze that. In that treatment there were 20 depositors: 10 patient and 10 impatient. R=2 and L=0.5.

I made a mistake when I increased the number of subjects from 18 to 20. I only left the bank with $9 in the short-term investment and $9 in the long-term investment.

If only 10 impatient withdrew, the bank would have to cash in $2 of the long-term investment to pay for the 10th impatient investor. This would leave $7 in the long term investment. The 10 patient depositors would still get on average $1.4. Hence, it would make sense to wait and there would be two equilibria.

If one patient depositor withdrew early, the bank would pay out on average $10/9=$1.11. If two patient depositors withdrew early, the bank would pay out on average $6/8=$.75.

Hence, if two or more patient depositors withdrew early (along with 10 impatient), then it would be a dominant strategy to withdraw early as well.

Question 4
There is a Beersheva to Haifa train line. Travellers either go between Haifa and Tel Aviv with demand $$12-p $$,	Tel Aviv and Beersheva 12-p,	Haifa and Beersheva. $$18-p$$, Say it is all owned by one profit maximizing monopolist with marginal cost of zero. For simplicity assume that the monopolist must set the price of the Haifa-Beersheva route equal to the sum of the other two. What would he charge for all three routes? Now say the government thinks it needs to add competition to the rail industry. It divides things into two companies. One takes care of the Haifa-Tel Aviv route and the other the Tel Aviv-Beersheva route. The price of the combined trip is the sum of the other two. What are the new prices? Who wins and who loses?

Answer 4
Because the Monopolist has to set a price exactly the same for all three train lines he will try and maximize- 2*(12-p)p+(18-p)p --> p=7.

Now the situation is a bit different. instead of having on monopolist for the entire train lines we have two seperate monopolists for each leg of the lines. Each monopolist will try and maximize his own profits.

Tel-Aviv -- Beer-Sheva

maximizing- (12-p)p --> p=6

Tel-Aviv -- Haifa

maximizing- (12-p)p --> p=6

Therefore, the price for a train ride from Beer-Sheva to Haifa will now cost 12 shekels.

The two comapnies win because they gain more money than the what happenned before. Furthermore, people who only wants to go from Beer-Sheva to Tel-Aviv or only from Tel-Aviv to Haifa also gain from a reduction of 1 Shekel in the price. On the other hand, people who wants to go from Beer-Sheva to Haifa suffer, in this new situation, from an increase of 5 Shekels in the overall price.

 An interesting interpretation to the problem. In the first part, you limited the monopolist to set a single price for any route. While this may seem unusual, it is the limitation in many subway systems such as NYC. For this limitation, I think you solved the problem correctly. In the second part, it seems that the demand for the Beer-Sheva to Haifa route is missing. This demand may affect the choice of price by the two companies. - you should take the aggregate demand d=30-p --> p=7.5  for the Haifa-Beer-Sheva road and the other road with stop on T"A. for Tel-Aviv -- Beer-Sheva and Tel-Aviv -- Haifa the amount of tickets sold is 4.5. profit=33.75

now government divides the company into two.

П1=p1(12-p1-p2)==> p1=4 d=2 П1=16 П2=p2(12-p1-p2)==> p2=4 d=2 П2=16 П=32 D=4 p=8

Everybody losses. this is more reasonable after reading class conclusion.

 Notice the aggregate demand here is different than the previous response. I believe it is an attempt to determine the total demand for the Beersheva-Haifa route. This is given that due to symmetry the optimal price of the Beersheva-Tel Aviv route should equal the price of the Tel Aviv-Haifa route and half the price of the Beersheva-Haifa route. When adding demand curves one has to be careful. For example, adding two demands of demand of 12-p together is not a demand of 24-p; it is a demand of 24-2p. Anyway, I think if one wanted to do this as intended the demand would be

$$ (18-p)p+(12-p/2)*p/2+(12-p/2)*(p/2) $$

Simplifying yields

$$ (30-3p/2)p $$

This is maximized at p=10 with a profit of 150. This is the same result as analysis of a different method below.

I am not sure about the second part.

I think it is great that people were able to come up with different ways to examine the problem. I am quite happy with this result since in the "real world" we (economists) don't always have well-defined problems and must still attempt to model them. My way of looking at the problem is that we can call p1 the price of Beersheva to Tel-Aviv, p2 the price of Tel Aviv to Haifa, and p3 the price of Beersheva to Haifa. My thoughts were that p3=p1+p2. While over simplified, it avoids worrying about arbitrage such as if p3>p1+p2, one can buy two separate tickets and stop for a cup of coffee at Tel Aviv. Using this, the monopolist has the following maximization problem $$ max_{p_1,p_2} (12-p_1)p_1+(12-p_2)p_2+ (18-p_1-p_2)(p_1+p_2) $$ The two first-order conditions (with respect to p1 and p2) are $$12-2p_1-(p_1+p_2)+(18-p_1-p_2)=0$$,

$$12-2p_2-(p_1+p_2)+(18-p_1-p_2)=0$$ Solving should yield p1=p2=5 and p3=10 for a total profit of 150.

Now if the company were divided into two separate halves, the firm on the BeerSheva-Tel Aviv route would solve $$ max_{p_1} (12-p_1)p_1+ (18-p_1-p_2)(p_1) $$ while the firm on the Tel Aviv- Haifa route would solve $$ max_{p_2} (12-p_2)p_2+ (18-p_1-p_2)(p_2). $$ Notice that adding these two together yields the same expression for joint profit as above.

The first-order conditions of these maximization problems are $$ 12-2p_1+ 18-p_1-p_2-p_1=0 $$

$$ 12-2p_2+ 18-p_1-p_2-p_2=0 $$

Solving yields p1=p2=6 with each firm earning a profit of 72 for a combined profit of 144. Notice that prices are higher and profits are lower.

Question 5
Students like to go to the Haifa Ball depending upon how many other students go there. Tickets cost 32 NIS each. There are 1000 students indexed by i from 1 to 1000. Student i has value vi=i. Student i has utility (in shekels) for going to the Ball of $$v_i{n \over 5000}$$, where n is the total number of students going to the Ball. (i) If everyone believes $$n=500 $$, which students will be willing to go to the ball? (ii) What is the threshold number of tickets sold above which it will be a success and below which it will be a failure? (iii) What is the equilibrium of tickets sold if the ball is a success? (iv) What is the equilibrium of tickets sold if the ball is a failure?

Answer 5
(i) i*n/5000>32 --> 500*i/5000>32 --> i>320.

Because there are 1000 students than 1000-320=680 will go.

(ii) we know that P=nv/5000/

we also know that n=1000-v. therefore- P=n(1000-n)/5000 --> 32=n(1000-n)/5000 n=200,800. thus- the threshold wil be n=200.

(iii) if the ball will be a success then the number of tickets sold will be 800

(iv) if the ball is a failure the number of tickets bought will be 0.

Question 6
In the takeover game, assume that the value for the seller is uniformly distributed between 50 and 100. Assume that it is still worth to the buyer 3/2 times the seller’s value. What should the buyer offer to the seller?

Answer 6
The buyer will offer- P=Vmin*(3/2). thus- P=50*(3/2)=75. Therefore, the Price that the buyer should offer is P=75. In that price the buyer can't loses any money but can win.

-  Very nice observation! It is true the buyer can't lose money and can only win, but perhaps he can do better. At a price of 75, the buyer makes a purchase 50% of the time. By increasing the price from 75 to 76, the buyer would increase his costs whenever P is below 75 by 1. However, there is a 2% chance (when the value is between 75 and 76) that he would make approximately 75*3/2-75=37.5. Since 2% of 38 is higher than 50% of 1, the buyer should raise his bid. See below for a solution. - Let us say that the buyer makes an offer of P. The odds that the seller has a value below P is $$ \frac{P-50}{100-50}$$. In such a case, the seller would accept the offer. Now GIVEN that the seller accepts the offer, the expected value to the seller is $$\frac{50+P}{2} $$. The value to the buyer in this case is $$\frac{3}{2} \cdot \frac{50+P}{2}$$. The price paid is simply P. Hence, the expected profit of the buyer given an offer of P would be $$ \frac{P-50}{100-50} \cdot (\frac{3}{2} \cdot \frac{50+P}{2}-P)$$.

This simplifies to $$ \frac{(P-50)\cdot (150 - P)}{200}$$, which is maximized at P=100.

Thus, the buyer will always be purchasing. Note the solution (choice of P) can be internal as well.

Question 7
A monopoly has marginal cost of 5 and faces a demand of q=20-p. What price should he charge to maximize profits? Let us say it is a vertical market of two firms: supplier and retailer. What would the price would the supplier charge the retailer? What would be the price charged to the end consumer? If the supplier charged a franchise fee in addition to wholesale price, what would they be? Extra: Solve the above problem for the general case of marginal cost of c facing demand of q=A-p where (A>c).

Answer 7
first of all we need to find the MR. the TR=20Q-Q2. thus the MR=20-2Q. We now set MR=MC and therefore- Q=7.5. And the price is - P=20-7.5=12.5 The profit of the supplier is (Ps-5)(20-Ps)/2. Thus the Ps=12.5 retailer sets price- Q=(20-P)/2 therefore - Q=(20-12.5)/2=3.75 Pc= 20-Q=20-3.75=16.25

Franchise Fee

If the supplier charges a franchise fee then Ps=MC=5. For the retailer- Q=(20-Ps)/2 --> Q=7.5 the retailer profits are: 7.5*12.5-7.5*5=56.25 Thherefore, the Franchise Fee=56.25

--

General case.

A monopoly has total revenue TR=(A-q)q. Thus, the marginal revenue MR=A-2q. Setting MR=MC yields A-2q=c or q=(A-c)/2. The profit of the monoplist is $$\pi_m=\frac{(A-c)^2}{4}$$ and the price he charges is A-(A-c)/2=(A+c)/2.

With a vertical market there are two firms: a supplier and a retailer. The supplier faces the marginal production costs of c. The retailer faces the demand of A-p. The retail now acts like the single monopolist instead of marginal cost c, it uses the price the supplier charges (call this ps). From the monopoly solution above, the quantity chosen by the retailer qr=(A-ps)/2. By choosing the price, the supplier is equivalently choosing the quantity qs. The price as a function of this quantity is then ps=A- 2qs. The MR for this supplier is now MR=A-4qs. Setting MR=MC yields A-4qs=c or qs=(A-c)/4. Profit for the supplier is then $$\pi_s=\frac{(A-c)^2}{8}$$. We can use the quantity qs to determine the price to the retailer ps. This is ps=A- 2qs=(A+c)/2. We then see that the price charged to the public is A-qs=(3A+c)/4. Profit for the retailer is then $$\pi_r=\frac{(A-p_s)^2}{4}=\frac{(A-c)^2}{16}$$. Notice the total profit goes down and the final price goes up.

For the franchise fee, the supplier does best be setting the price to his marginal cost c and setting F to equal the monopoly profit of $$\frac{(A-c)^2}{4}$$. Since we would then make the full monopoly profit, he can do no better. Note that the retailer makes nothing. Interestingly, during the experiment some subjects as suppliers set price to 0 and F to capture the whole profit of the retailer. This is not optimal since a larger quantity than the monopoly quantity would be sold (the retail gets the goods for too cheap of a price).

We can get the solution to the question by plugging in 20 for A and 5 for c.

Question 8
El Al and British Air are competing for passengers on the Tel Aviv- Heathrow route. Assume marginal cost is 4 and demand is Q = 18 − P. If they choose prices simultaneously, what will be the Bertrand equilibrium? If they can collude together and fix prices, what would they charge. In practice with such competition under what conditions would you expect collusion to be strong and under what conditions would you expect it to be weak. Under what conditions should the introduction of BMI affect prices?

Answer 8
In the first case the equilibrium price will be that in which P=MC. Thus, the price will be PEl Al=PBritish Air=4. If the two comapnies collude togerther they will get a price which will maximize their total profit. Therefore, they will try and maximize (P-4)(18-P)-->Q=7 (qA=qB=3.5); P=11. The coluusion is suppose to be strong if there is more then one encounter between the two players because each one will be afraid to betray the other due to the after-results of it.

The introduction of BMI will cause a change in the prices if BMI will have a different MC.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I think we should use the critirion with the B like we used in the class -    24.5/(1-B)>49  --> B>=0.5

Question 9
Solve a three stage ultimatum game where in the first stage player A offers player B an offer for a $10 pie. If this offer is rejected, then the pie shrinks to $8 and player B makes the offer. If this offer is rejected, then the pie shrinks to $6 and player A makes the offer. If this final offer is rejected, then the payoffs are 0 to both players. (Assume the possibility of continuous offers.)

Answer 9
we will look at the solution in a reverse way-

First we'll think about the second round- what is the best offer B can offers A which he won't decline. Because the max A can get in the third round is 5.99 than B can offer in the second round 2.01 for himself and 5.99 for A. Now let us see if it's worthwhile for A to offer something in the first round so that B won't want to reject it (while having full information and knowing all that we just wrote). The Best offer for A in the first round so that B won't reject it (meaning he will still get 2.01) is that A will offer 2.01 to B and 7.99 for himself.

Thus (A,B)=(7.99,2.01) on the first round is the equilibrium.

Question 10
You get in a taxi. Should you bargain over the price at the beginning or end of the trip? Why?

Answer 10
Under the "ultimatum game" hypothesis it is better to nagotiate on a price after the ride in the taxi. Before the ride the taxi driver knows you need a service so he will over-price you. On the other hand when you get to the end of your ride the taxi driver needs you because he already gave you a service and now you are in the position of power so even you will offer him a low price he is suppose to accept it because it is better than nothing.

Todd's response

Yes, this is the correct game theoretic solution. Unfortunately there is a true story of two economists that were in Jerusalem at a conference. They tried this on a taxi driver. The driver got so mad, he locked the doors and drove them all the way back to where they started. (I think the story was on the back cover of JPE.)

Question 11
''By popular demand, I have had a request for another network externalities question. So here it is.''

Home Box Office is a pay-TV service that is based in the US. After showing only movies they decided to increase subscribers by introducing shows such as Sex and the City and the Sopranos. A person enjoys a show for its quality and whether they can talk about it next to the water cooler the next day at work. Given that someone has seen the show, the probability that one can talk about it f is just the number of people who have seen the show divided by the total number of people. We index the possible viewers by i (from 1 to 1000). Viewer i has parameter vi where vi = i. Viewer i values subscribing to HBO 9+ (vi/10)· f. Note that 9 is the value of HBO from the sheer quality. The price charged for HBO is 30. (i) If everyone believes f = .4, which people will subscribe to HBO? (ii) What is the threshold number of subscribers above which HBO will be a success and below which HBO will be a failure? (iii) What is the equilibrium number of subscribers if HBO is a success? (iv) What is the equilibrium number of subscribers if HBO is a failure?

Answer 11
1. according to the information given to us we know that $$f={n \over 1000}$$ 2. moreover we know that $$P=9+({Vi \over 10})*f$$. 3. the last eqution we need is $$(n=1000-v)$$ or $$(v=1000-n)$$. (i) if $$f=0.4$$. we will use the (2) equation and insert the parameters in to it. $$30=9+({Vi \over 10})*0.4$$ → $$21*100=4Vi$$ → $$Vi=525$$ → $$n=1000-525=475$$. (ii) here we will use all the equations mentioned above. we will use equation (2) as a base and place the other 2 equations in to it: $$30=9+[{(1000-n)\over 10}]*({n \over 1000})$$. we get 2 solutions: $$n1=300$$ $$n2=700$$ and 300 is the threshold. (iii) $$n2=700$$ and is the equilibrium in the state of success. (iv) $$n=0$$.

title: Haifa mgsb: homework


text:
User:DouglasJensen

IT sales and consultation
[mailto:douglas.jensen@maxgaming.com.au Email] me

See also My web site

title: User:DouglasJensen