Solar Cell :: essays research papers fc

Solar cells Solar cells today are mostly made of silicon, one of the most common elements on Earth. The crystalline silicon solar cell was one of the first types to be developed and it is still the most common type in use today. They do not pollute the atmosphere and they leave behind no harmful waste products. Photovoltaic cells work effectively even in cloudy weather and unlike solar heaters, are more efficient at low temperatures. They do their job silently and there are no moving parts to wear out. It is no wonder that one marvels on how such a device would function. To understand how a solar cell works, it is necessary to go back to some basic atomic concepts. In the simplest model of the atom, electrons orbit a central nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons. each electron carries one negative charge and each proton one positive charge. Neutrons carry no charge. Every atom has the same number of electrons as there are protons, so, on the whole, it is electrically neutral. The electrons have discrete kinetic energy levels, which increase with the orbital radius. When atoms bond together to form a solid, the electron energy levels merge into bands. In electrical conductors, these bands are continuous but in insulators and semiconductors there is an "energy gap", in which no electron orbits can exist, between the inner valence band and outer conduction band [Book 1]. Valence electrons help to bind together the atoms in a solid by orbiting 2 adjacent nucleii, while conduction electrons, being less closely bound to the nucleii, are free to move in response to an applied voltage or electric field. The fewer conduction electrons there are, the higher the electrical resistivity of the material. In semiconductors, the materials from which solar sells are made, the energy gap Eg is fairly small. Because of this, electrons in the valence band can easily be made to jump to the conduction band by the injection of energy, either in the form of heat or light [Book 4]. This explains why the high resistivity of semiconductors decreases as the temperature is raised or the material illuminated. The excitation of valence electrons to the conduction band is best accomplished when the semiconductor is in the crystalline state, i.e. when the atoms are arranged in a precise geometrical formation or "lattice". At room temperature and low illumination, pure or so-called "intrinsic" semiconductors have a high resistivity. But the resistivity can be greatly reduced by "doping", i.e. introducing a very small amount of impurity, of the order of one in a million atoms. There are 2 kinds of

Planck V. Indiana :: essays research papers

Planck v. Indiana In the reviewing the case of Planck v. Indiana, many complicated issues arise. Included in those, individual rights conflicting with the public good are among the most difficult. According to Mr and Mrs. Planck's attorney, John Price, the Planck's religious beliefs prohibit them from accepting professional medicine practice, as they practice alternative medicine and home school their children. After a complaint from an older Planck daughter, who did not embrace or respect her family's lifestyle, the state was called in to investigate the health of the Planck children. In a preliminary check by the state of Indiana for eyesight, Lance Planck was found not to be in need of any service. Despite this finding, the Madison County Superior Court ordered that all of the Planck's children's eyes be examined by the state. One month after the Court ordered this, twenty armed officers with guns drawn came to the Planck's residence and commanded Mr. and Mrs. Planck to give up their children. Mr. Planck told the officers that he did not know why they were there, was pushed to the ground and had loaded rifles pointed at him. The children were then forcibly removed from their parents custody, and at no time was any identification shown by the officers. Curt, Lance Planck's younger brother, resisted this removal from his house, and was threatened by an officer that he would be "dragged out of here." After this scene, Emily, Stephen, and Curtis Planck were loaded into a van and driven to an eye doctor in Anderson, Indiana. The examining doctor, Dr. Joseph Woschitz, came to the conclusion that no treatment was needed for any of the children. How can the state justify this type of behavior? Is ripping a child unwillingly from his mother's arms in the best interest of the public good? What does society have to benefit from this? In short, this does not affect the public good per se, but does affect the Plancks and any other family that practices a religion that is not widely accepted. Following the above events, Mr. and Mrs. Planck were subsequently arrested, had their First Amendment rights violated, and had their home invaded by armed SWAT team members who fired a CS tear gas canister into their house. Simply, Mr. and Mrs. Planck and their children were targeted by the state selectively because of their religious beliefs which they manifested in home education and the practice of alternative medicine. The fundamental argument here is that the Planck's rights have been violated, and the State of Indiana has overstepped its duty of caring for the Planck's children.

A Persuasive Essay on Underage Drinking

Because underage drinking is related to easy access to alcohol, an alcohol-related problem associated exclusively with young people is that of underage drinking in licensed premises. Young people may enter bars, subject to the licensee’s permission, once they are 18 years of age in England, Scotland and Wales.The corresponding age in the United States is 21. Survey findings show that between 10 and 20 per cent of 13 year olds report that their usual location for drinking is in a public bar, club or disco. The proportion drinking in these establishments rises steadily with age, until at 17 years of age, between 50 and 90 per cent of young people choose licensed places in which to conduct their drinking (Wagenaar and Wolfson 1994).This paper argues that there is need in the determination of the extent to which raising the minimum drinking age results in reduction in use and problems among young adults.Policies to restrict the minimum drinking age at which licensed sales to under age youth are permitted are intended to restrict youth access to alcohol and prevent the early onset and rapid development of drinking problems among youth and young adults. It is of some interest in this regard to also determine the effects of lower minimum drinking ages on alcohol problems.There is now a strong and consistent body of knowledge in relation to the impact of drinking age laws for public drinking and making legal purchases of alcohol. This was influential in assisting community advocacy groups to push successfully for the drinking age to be raised to 21 in many US States, following experiences with earlier periods of relaxation (Wagenaar and Wolfson 1994).These drinking age laws stand as the highest in the world, being shared with Malaysia, South Korea and Ukraine. Most countries for which information is available have 18 as the legal drinking age and a handful of European countries have adopted 16 (Austria, Belgium, France, Italy and Spain).There is persuasive eviden ce that changes to the minimum legal drinking age directly result in corresponding changes in levels of a variety of problems relating to alcohol intoxication, including road traffic fatalities, juvenile crime, serious assault and drunkenness convictions for the affected age groups (Yu 1998).The US General Accounting Office (1987) conducted a systematic review of this topic and, on the basis of 14 studies judged to be methodologically sound, estimated reductions in fatal road crashes among young drivers to be 5–28%. In one study of changes in drinking age laws across four Australian states, reductions were significantly associated with increases in assaults.Following the drop in drinking age from 21 to 18 in Western Australia in 1970, rates of serious assault increased by 231% for juveniles in comparison with Queensland (O'malley and Wagenaar 1991).

Ethical Considerations Associated

Ethical Considerations Associated with Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining occurs when both sides in a case compromise to settle the matter before having a Judge or Jury decide. More often than not, the defendant pleads guilty to a crime that carries a less harsh sentence than the actual accused offense. The ethical dilemma is one of convenience over Justice. This approach, however, might cause ethical dilemmas, such as inequality in the Justice system. The courts are clogged, prosecutors are overworked, and there is the constitutional demand for â€Å"Speedy Trial. On one hand you have the courts doing their best to manage logjams, and on the other the need to provide Justice. Plea bargaining is done for several reasons such as, the chances of a lengthy trial or the lack of concrete evidence. Courts frequently bargain away charges that are just in order to get a guilty verdict on a lesser charge because they want the case to go away, or they don't want to take the risk in a trial becau se they doubt the conclusiveness of their evidence.Plea Bargains often cut out many court costs and help the legal system move cases along more quickly. This many lead to guilty individuals going free, receiving a fine, probation or a drastically reduced prison sentence for committing a heinous crime. Parties that work on a bargain agreement usually get a lesser sentence than a person who attempts to contest charges through a proper trial. Moreover, Justice can be harmed when the guilty are not properly punished, and this can have a corrosive effect on popular belief in the fairness of the ystem.Whether an ethical dilemma exists with plea bargaining depends on how a person views the ultimate goal of the court system. Those who think the Judicial system should deter crime and work efficiently, see plea bargains as a useful tool. However, those who prize equality see them as ethically dubious. Supporters of plea bargaining may admit to some deficiencies in the court system, however, t he often seemly unanswerable question remains; what's the alternative?

Animal Environmental Problems

In the ever changing environment it is a daily struggle for animals to maintain there natural habitats. With the environmental and man made challenges that animals face it is important that we take steps to ensure their survival on earth. If we choose not to help wildlife in the future, not only will they suffer, but we will suffer for the losses. I will attempt to explain what will happen if we don’t take measures now to ensure their survival. The first issue that needs to be dealt with is the amount of construction taking place in the world today. For example, animals are losing their environments in rainforests and woods all over the world to clear the path for new buildings and construction. With nowhere to go, animals are losing their lives and unable to breed. Another reason the future of wildlife is in danger is because of global warming. With the amount of people in the world and all the waist and pollution that they create has caused severe climate changes worldwide. For example, the polar bears have been affected by these climate changes due to the melted ice caps in the Antarctic. This causes them to travel greater distances in the search for food and risking starvation. Finally, if we choose not to help wildlife in the future we will have the greatest loss to ourselves because many animals will become extinct and future generations will only be able to see these beautiful creatures in photographs. In conclusion, it is up to us to ensure the future of wildlife by making changes that will affect not only animals but every human on earth.

Hobbes’ And Locke’s Political Philosophy Essay

On Hobbes’ Political Philosophy Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy presupposed that man is the self-sufficient interpreter of the facts of life and that man can correctly define what the facts of life are. Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes asserted that the knowable facts of life are only particular empirical things. Thus, Hobbes asserted that universal words, such as good and evil, are incomprehensible to man in the objective sense as rooted in reality. Because they are non-empirical and universal, they are mere names. Like the Sophists, Hobbes was also a nominalist. Moreover, Hobbes asserted that metaphysical essences and metaphysical forms do not exist. God’s attributes are merely names that man thinks would honor Him. Thus, like the Sophists, there is no natural hierarchy tied to the essences or purposes of things, but only a realm of natural causes. For Hobbes, man existed individually in a state of nature before civil government was formed. He asserted that human equality is based upon an empirical condition, namely power. Man in the state of nature was obligated only to seek Peace by self-preservation. Hobbes embraced a negative theory of freedom. There was really no law in the state of nature because the obligation to seek peace was not declared from a higher power; no one had a Bible in the state of nature to proclaim to him the will of almighty God. As one who believed in God’s existence, Hobbes’ scientistic epistemology and ontology forced him to embrace theological voluntarism. Ultimately, morals are grounded in the arbitrary will of God rather than His character. Hobbes postulated that the superior will and power are the only legitimate grounds of law.[1] In terms of what is good and evil, just and unjust, the natural man in a state of nature did whatever he reasonably thought was right in his own eyes to preserve his life. If killing another person was deemed necessary to preserve his life, then it was good and just in the sense that it preserved the peace. Thus, because good and evil, just and unjust are mere names whose meanings no one can agree on, the state of nature is a state of war, every man against every man. And because man naturally avoids the risk of harm, he arms himself to preserve the peace.[2] For Hobbes, only civil society has a supreme sovereign to give the citizens the standard they so desperately need to judge between good and evil, virtue and vice. For Hobbes, good and evil are not objective ideas rooted in reality that man can conceive and understand with his own mind. Therein is the fountain from which springs forth the conflict of individual man in a state of nature. Man, as a risk avoider, contracts with his fellow man to leave the state of nature and create an artificial civil society in which a third party will act as the supreme power. Hobbes pointed, the will of the parties in their social contract create their duties to each other and to the third party. The third party, the king, must define for the society what is good and evil, just and unjust so that the natural war of all against all will cease. The king, however, is not a party to the contract. The king has no contractual duty to the citizens, but only a natural duty to God to seek peace. The king seeks peace by deterring evildoers (the king defines who is evil) by wielding the sword and restricting free speech. Thus, any punishment meted out by the government is for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing, not retribution. That is, the â€Å"evildoer† is neither punished because he necessarily deserves it nor punished proportionally to his just desert, but because the punishment is an example to others how seriously the king takes his duty to preserve the peace. Thus, logically, the king could â€Å"rightly† punish an innocent citizen. The only inalienable right the citizens have is the natural right to preserve their life. Thus, they contracted to obey the king; they did not contract not to resist the king when being punished. In the state of nature, no man is obligated to heed another person’s opinion or power. Every person has a right to all things, to define what is good and what is evil, even to kill a person if one does not trust him. For Hobbes, the primary means of achieving peace is by creating an â€Å"artificial† society through individual covenantal relationships (Ibid, 66). In De Cive, Hobbes defined a contract as â€Å"the act of two, or more, mutually conveying their rights† and a covenant as that which involves promises that bind one to perform in the future (Ibid, 35-36). Hobbes’ political theory involves more of a social covenant idea than a social contract. But he does tend to use the two terms interchangeably, as is evidenced below, perhaps signifying both that rights are given up and that one is bound to perform in the future with the creation of civil society out of the state of nature.[3] Most assuredly, Hobbes’ political philosophy is a recipe for a tyrannical and oppressive government Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in man’s self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. In addition, because the social contract or covenant is made with each other and not with the sovereign, the sovereign has no obligation to the people that arises from the social contract. The only obligation the absolute sovereign king has is to God. In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses why a king with such absolute power â€Å"will not take all, spoil all, kill all†. Hobbes states: â€Å"[T]hough by right, that is, without injury to them, he may do it, yet can he not do it justly, that is, without breach of the natural laws, and injury against God. And therefore there is some security for subjects in the oaths which princes take†.[4] Hobbes seems to say that the king would not be seeking peace, the one obligation of the natural law, if he sought to â€Å"take all, spoil all, and kill all†. But if the king does abuse his power, the citizens have an inalienable right to resist death. For Hobbes, the citizens contracted or covenanted away their natural right to all things, but one: the preservation of life. According to Hobbes, that is the one inalienable right that men have. In essence, men contract or covenant with each other that the king may kill them if they do not perform their contractual duty, not that they will not resist when then king attempts to kill them. Although the king can â€Å"sin †¦ against God,† in no situation â€Å"is the right taken away from him, of slaying those who shall refuse to obey him†.[5] Moreover, the king has the right â€Å"to judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught†.[6] Hence, it is the sole purpose of having a civic government. On Locke’s Political Philosophy The state of nature refers to the natural pre-political state of man. Except for the fact that Locke believed man naturally is a social person in a family, he agreed with Hobbes that man is not naturally a social being. Similar to Hobbes, civil society is not natural, but artificial. In a state of nature, man was free within the bounds of the natural law and was equal in power in relation to everyone else to act as judge in his own case and controversy with anyone else. The natural law obligates man to preserve himself: to do no harm, and to preserve the community in the absence of competition.[7] Similar to Hobbes, Locke equated human equality with power. Although Locke believed in a positive view of freedom whereby man is free only within law, Locke failed to show that man could know the specifics of the natural law code and thus, he failed to show that man really possessed a positive freedom in the state of nature. Do no harm does not provide much moral guidance. In reality, like Hobbes, for Locke man possessed a negative freedom. Locke stated â€Å"state all men are naturally in†¦ is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another†.[8] Similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke believed man began his existence in a state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature is divided into two historical stages. In the first stage, man had a natural property right over his own body. Everything else was naturally held in common. When a man labored over something that was held in common, he acquired property in it. Moreover, man had a natural right of subsistence, which was regulated by spoilage. In other words, what man possessed as property by mixing his labor with it was limited by what he could consume before spoiling. The second stage of the state of nature was initiated in by the invention and use of money. With the invention of money, man could enlarge his possessions way beyond what he could consume before spoiling. Money does not spoil. Although the use of money produced the unequal division of the earth, overall, Locke argues everyone is better off: For Locke, mankind socially compacted to form civil society for several reasons: first, some in the state of nature were ignorant of the law of nature, second some were biased by the amount of property they had, third, there was no impartial judge to resolve disputes, and fourth, there was no third power to execute the law of nature. Underlying all of these reasons to form civil society is, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, man’s self-interested passion to preserve himself. Because not one theoretical or practical principle is written on man’s heart, the natural law is not written on man’s heart. Because the natural law can be known only from a lawmaker, those who are ignorant of God’s existence because they fail to apply their reason are ignorant of the natural law. For those who do apply their reason and come to know of God’s existence and the natural law, Locke claimed that they could know the natural law code as they could know the specifics of mathematics. But Locke never came close to showing that the specific moral code is capable of mathematical demonstration. Locke extremely overestimated how much moral knowledge his empiricist epistemology could deliver. Locke’s empiricist epistemology could not demonstrate in detail what was good or evil, just or unjust For Locke, man’s conscience is nothing other than his own opinion of what is right and wrong. Thus, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke was essentially a skeptic. God’s natural law governs his creatures. Although Locke wrote of God’s right and authority to rule over his creatures, Locke never justifies his assertion. Locke never demonstrated that God was anything except the most powerful being that could compel obedience through rewards and punishments. Locke’s empiricist epistemology does not allow him to draw the distinction between authority and mere power. Thus, like Hobbes, punishment for Locke was merely deterrence. Moreover, because Locke was so consumed with, and analyzed so thoroughly, the empiricist epistemology of natural law, Locke demonstrates clearer than Hobbes that scientism coupled with a belief in God leads to nothing but theological voluntarism, i.e., the law is ultimately grounded in God’s almighty will, not His unchanging character, such that God can will anything to be moral. Thus, whoever embraces an empiricist epistemology and at the same time, acknowledges God as the ultimate lawgiver, will be left with nothing but theological voluntarism. Thus, scientistic modernism destroyed the firm and unchanging foundation of civil law and the only real restraint to civil tyranny, namely, a natural law grounded in God’s eternal and unchanging character. Similar to Hobbes, the source of civil governmental power for Locke is the consent of the people. There are two natural powers that are given to civil society, the legislative and executive. The legislative power in any civil government is superior over the executive because it gives the laws to the executive. Some of man’s natural executive power is retained. This is so because man’s natural right of self-preservation is inalienable, i.e., it cannot be given over to civil government. Thus, men in civil society have a right to resist the civil government if, after a long train of abuses, their opinion on the basis of their feelings grounded in their experience is that the civil government has violated the natural law. The civil governmental authority puts itself into a state of war with the people when it repeatedly violates the natural law. Tyranny occurs when the civil government acts out of its own self-interest and does not protect the property of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is weak, however, because he failed to demonstrate that the specific code of the natural law is knowable.[9] Similar to Hobbes, Locke’s empiricist epistemology made the end of civil government empirical, i.e., the self-preservation of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is based upon the personal opinions of the people. Thus, Locke could support that notion that the civil government should tolerate every religious opinion that does not threaten the people’s physical property.[10] Moreover, Locke placed most religious beliefs in the realm of mere opinions. For Locke, only a few religious propositions were within the realm of demonstrative knowledge. Overall, Locke’s theory of religious toleration is a two-edged sword. In a sense, it encouraged theological relativism. In another sense, it allowed religious liberty, albeit seemingly equating toleration with liberty (negative freedom). Finally, if Hobbes’ political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together under one sovereign power, then Locke’s political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together by balancing their opinions with the civil government’s. Thus, contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed that a little civil resistance now and then is a good thing. Although Locke’s political philosophy guard’s against tyranny better than the political philosophy of the Sophists and Hobbes, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke’s scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in man’s self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. BIBILIOGRAPHY Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, ed. Michael Oakeshott. New York: Simon &. Schuster, Inc., 1997. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. [1]   Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (New York: Simon &. Schuster, Inc., 1997), 54-63) [2] Ibid, 72-77. [3] Ibid, 11-21. [4] Ibid, 77. [5] Ibid, 79. [6] Ibid, 76. [7] Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 283-290. [8] Ibid, 263. [9] Ibid, 290-292. [10] Ibid.

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT 5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT 5 - Essay Example The law which would be discussed is that of Equal Employment opportunity. It has been pointed out that under the traditional principles of international law the activities of an overseas subsidiary which had been incorporated according to the laws of another were not subject to US legal regulation; the main reason for this being the fact that the nationality of a business entity was dependent on the country in which it had been incorporated.2 This has been boycotted by the Congress. In context of employment there have been introduced various civil law rights which include Title VII, the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Extraterritorial effect has been given to these rights. It has been said that this had been provided so as to extend the reach of US employment laws which was as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Boureslan case in which Title VII to protect US citizens who were working abroad was refused, due to the international jurisdiction principle.3 The problems that tend to arise with regards to foreign company constantly insisting to hire its own nationals in US, and the main reason for this being the general knowledge which is possessed by them with regards to matters of the company. Thus there have been many claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin.4 The courts has acknowledge the FCN treaty which allows for hiring of nationals in the subsidiary of the parent company, only on certain designations5. However it has been stated by the Supreme Court that a subsidiary of a Japanese company does not come under the FCN treaty since it has been established in the US.6 By the analysis it has been clearly verified that US discrimination laws apply to foreign employers operating inside the US.7 Further it has been stated that even though the FCN treaty right allows for the hiring of nationals of parent company, there is no justification in FCN for dismissal of a US citizen because of age, which would be a discrimination.8 The courts have illustrated that right to prefer a citizen does not allow the employers to discriminate on other grounds.9 Further the right of FCN given to corporation to favor its own citizens does not make allow sexual harassment.10 However it can be clearly seen that the citizenship and national origin are in conflict, thus the right to discriminate based on FCN treaty is in conflict with discrimination on national origin which is prohibited under Title VII.11 The risks that a company takes when establishing business globally include among other things the different customs and laws, the cost of labor, taxes and other variant factors depending from country to country. The laws as have been pointed are mainly focused upon discrimination, equal pay and labor laws. The most important factor that should be taken into account by the company is to carefully research the legal position of their establishment in the country and to act accordingly. Further a company should take into minimum wages and the taxation process within the country. The possibilities of negotiation with the State are possible if it is a large corporation. The possible treaties that have been signed between the countries can be looked