THERMODYNAMICS AND FREE
ENERGY
© May 8, 1994 by Peter A. Lindemann.
Reprinted from Borderlands Magazine
The mainstream scientific community dismisses the idea of "Free Energy" or "Over-Unity" machines because they say that the behavior of such machines violates the "Second Law of Thermodynamics." The purpose of this article is to squarely face this issue from an alternative science point of view. Many engineers and inventors, working in the alternative energy field, still mistakenly believe that the "Laws of Thermodynamics" are universally true. For them, the "free energy" machine can only be a clever scientific slight of hand where the machine becomes "outlaw", breaking some fundamental universe law. For progress to be made in this field, the limitations and errors inherent in the "Laws of Thermodynamics" must be exposed. Only then will people realize that scientific experimentation is the only reliable tool for revealing the behavior of physical reality.
In order to bring this about, it will be helpful to quickly review some of the pivotal historical events which helped shape the modern scientific era with regards to thermodynamics. Before the year 1800, perpetual motion machines were considered possible and heat was not regarded as a form of energy. Both of these long standing assumptions, dating back thousands of years, were effectively toppled by the ideas of Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847 when he postulated that since no one had ever been able to build a working perpetual motion machine, that just probably, it was not possible. In order to deny the possibility of perpetual motion and hold the argument together, he had to assume that energy in the system was being conserved. It had long been observed that mechanical devices could not transfer energy perfectly. There was always some friction in the working parts. Friction was not only known to impede the transfer of energy in the machine, but it was known to produce heat. In order to simultaneously explain the work loss and the heat gain, so that conservation could be satisfied, Helmholtz postulated that heat was a form of energy consisting of a small, random motion in the molecules of matter. He went on to speculate that the loss of work in the machine as large scale motion was still present as heat in the small scale motion of the molecules in the material the machine was made of. He suggested from this that both the heat and work must be considered energy, and that it was the total that was conserved, rather than the heat or work separately.
By 1850, Rudolf Clausius was able to synthesize the work of Helmholtz, James Joule, Sadi Carnot and others to express a generalized statement that has become known as the "First Law of Thermodynamics." It states that "energy can be changed from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed." By the time this thought became universally believed, it had totally transformed the intellectual landscape of mechanics, physics and energy dynamics. This was a clean break from the set of thoughts and assumptions that had come forward from antiquity. A new era in science had begun.
In understanding these historical developments, it is important to realize that besides the new theoretical explanation about the nature of heat, all of the other data that led to the new theoretical generalizations was derived experimentally. This can be illustrated by an observation made by Sadi Carnot in his extensive work regarding the behavior of heat in machines. He states that "in all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed that is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work, an equal quantity of heat is produced." This statement by Carnot was based on hundreds of experimental measurements. After such convincing experimentation, it was not unreasonable for Clausius to conclude that heat could be converted into mechanical work. It was, however, a theoretical leap of logic to conclude that energy, in general, could be changed from one form to another.
Before we go on, it is important, for our purposes, to be reminded that this new idea expressed as the "First Law of Thermodynamics" consists of a number of overlapping ideas and assumptions that can be expressed as follows:
1) Perpetual motion machines are impossible
2) The nature of heat is reduced to the random motions of molecular matter
3) Energy can be changed from one form to another without any explanation as to how this conversion is actually accomplished in any specific case
4) Energy is not created in or destroyed by its passage through a mechanism
5) All forms of energy behave the same way
All of these ideas are fundamentally inherent in "The First Law of Thermodynamics." From an alternative science point of view, the experimental work of Carnot and Joule will stand for all time. It is the intellectual overlay of Helmholtz and Clausius, on this experimental work, where the problems are introduced. The theory of conversion and the ideas about the nature of heat will be taken up again later in this article, after more ground work has been laid.
The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" evolved out of further studies of the behavior of heat in closed systems. Remarkably, there is no one statement that is universally recognized as the definitive expression of this so called "Law". Among the more popular statements which reflect the general understanding of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" are the following: "In a closed system, entropy does not decrease", "The state of order in a closed system does not spontaneously increase without the application of work", "Among all the allowed states of a system with given values of energy, number of particles and constraints, one and only one is a stable equilibrium state", and "It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no other effect than the production of work and exchange of heat with a single reservoir." For those who can fathom the language, these statements clearly do not all express the same idea. Some have broad ramifications while others are more narrowly defined. All of these statements grew out of the idea, expressed fairly well as the last statement in the series, that a perpetual motion machine could not be made that operated on the principle of a work/heat exchange when this process was limited to a known quantity of heat at the start. After that amount of heat was converted to work and the temperature of the reservoir was reduced to the ambient temperature outside, no further work could be expected to be produced. This is not only reasonable, but it is backed up by thousands of experiments. As long as the "Law" is clearly and narrowly defined as a statement that reflects upon the behavior of heat in closed systems, this author has no problem with agreeing completely.
Problems arise, however, with some of the more generalized interpretations of the "Law" such as "the state of order in a closed system does not spontaneously increase without the application of work." In order to understand why this statement is not universally true, it is important to clearly define our terms. We must understand what is meant by the "state of order" in a system, and we must define the boundaries of the "closure" of that system. In the first case, the "state of order" in the system is generally regarded as the temperature. Understanding this, we can rephrase this statement to say, that in a thermally isolated enclosure, the temperature will not increase unless work or energy is added to the system. Here again, by clearly defining our terms, and limiting the discussion to heat and work, we have a universally true statement backed up by mountains of experimental data. If, however, we define the "state of order" as a generalized "quantity of energy", and we further define the "closed system" as the Universe, we are led to believe that under no circumstance is it possible to create a condition where the concentration of energy will increase spontaneously. This is not true!
While it should be understood that most known chemical processes, standard electrical equipment and heat generally do behave this way, the Etheric Energy Field of the planet does not. The Etheric Energy Field behaves in direct opposition to the more generalized understandings of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and this fact is backed up by considerable experimental data. One of the best documented examples of this is the spontaneous temperature rise observed in the "orgone accumulator", invented by Dr. Wilhelm Reich in 1940. Here, a simple enclosure made of alternating layers of organic and inorganic material, allows the ambient density of the Etheric Energy Field to become more concentrated in the local area, without the application of work. This new and higher energy concentration is then reflected as a spontaneous rise in temperature. This situation does not break the "Second Law" in the narrow case, because we admit that new energy is entering the system. It does break the "Second Law" in the general case because this energy is entering without the application of external work. Reich's accumulator was designed as an attempt to shield and isolate this energy from its presence in the environment. His data clearly showed, however, that he was not able to isolate the energy effects inside the accumulator because the Etheric Energy Field easily penetrated the walls of the enclosure. He eventually realized that with regard to Etheric Energy Fields, it was impossible to "close the system" in the local sense. This is important to understand because it directly refutes the assumption that the universe consists only of closed systems at all levels of activity.
Here then is a major problem with how the scientific community regards the "Laws of Thermodynamics." When the discussion is limited to the behavior of heat in closed systems, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" is a well tested and accurate description of what happens under those circumstances. It is when it is incorrectly assumed that all forms of energy behave this way and that enclosure of the system is possible at all levels, that grossly false conclusions can be drawn from what started out as experimentally derived observations. The scientific community-at-large obviates these problems simply by denying the existence of the Etheric Energy Field because it doesn't fit within their intellectual model. Unfortunately for them, the mounting experimental evidence is making this increasingly hard to do.
Certainly, the best evidence to date of the existence of the Etheric Energy Field and its capability of being drawn to high concentrations without the application of work is demonstrated by the Etheric Weather Engineering techniques developed by Trevor James Constable and his Atmos Engineering group. As a member of this group, I have personally seen how simple Etheric Energy projectors, that do no work in the classical sense, can cause the etheric potentials in the atmosphere to rise to such high concentrations that millions of gallons of water will precipitate from the air for hours at a time.
When these Etheric Energy projectors are motorized, they draw a few hundred watts of electric energy. If the rain produced is dropped behind a dam and then released through a hydro-electric turbine, the electrical energy gain in the system can be enormous, on the order of 100,000 to 1. This method of creating "free energy" is a practical reality today. While I know of no community using this method for supplying its energy needs, it is eminently practicable. This example is theoretical in the sense that it has never been done, but it is a good model of other "free energy" systems under development around the world today.
Because the input to motorize the Etheric Energy projectors is electric and the output from the hydro-electric generators is electric, many people might mistake this for a so-called "over-unity" system. There is nothing "over-unity" about this situation. Each and every component of the machinery used in this system has operational and frictional losses. The energy tapped by the system is the atmospheric ether and all of the energy gain in the system occurs outside of the equipment. The fact that a small electric input yields a huge electric output does not mean the system is operating "over-unity.
The problem with the "over-unity" concept goes back to the "First Law of Thermodynamics" and its inherent idea about the ability to convert one form of energy into another. This assumption includes the idea that these various conversions are accomplished at known and accepted rates of exchange. The idea of efficiency of conversion requires that the various rates of exchange are fixed and act as an upper limit for the calculation of a ratio that approaches one (100%) where the numerator of this fraction is the "output" and the denominator is the "input." Since it is generally agreed that every machine experiences so-called losses, the idea that this ratio could be greater than one is, of course, ridiculous. This, coupled with the assumption in the "Second Law" that all energy systems are closed, (meaning that no new energy can enter the system in-between the "input" and the "output") makes the idea of an "over-unity" system even more impossible than a mere perpetual motion machine. The line of logic embodied in the "Laws of Thermodynamics" is flawless. The problem doesn't exist in the logic, but it does illustrate that logic alone is not enough to reveal the truth. The problem exists in certain interpretations of these "Laws." Let's go back and look at the "First Law" again in light of our "over-unity" discussion. "Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed." This seems simple enough to understand. Underneath the surface, however, there is an assumption that this also means that energy will not spontaneously appear or disappear from the system. This is also a necessary condition if conservation of energy is to be satisfied LOCALLY as well as UNIVERSALLY.
This discussion becomes relevant, for instance, in describing the operation of the rotating magnet generator, the so called N-machine or Space Power Generator (SPG). Most of the important work in this field has been done by Bruce DePalma and Parmahamsa Tewari. The following is a brief summary. The rotation of the magnet sets up two force fields that act at right angles to each other. These two force fields are the radially distributed inertial frame of space (centrifugal force) and the intersecting axially distributed magnetic field of the rotating magnet. The area of magnetized, polarized, inertial space appears to open up a region through which new energy can enter the system. When careful measurements are taken of current flows in the generator and in the external circuit, evidence suggests that electric charges are appearing at the periphery of the generator and disappearing at the center of the generator that do not actually pass through the generator. This experimental finding may explain why this configuration of electric generator experiences less mechanical drag than standard generator designs for each unit of electrical output produced. While energy is probably not being created or destroyed in the universal context, it is apparently appearing and disappearing from the machine during operation in the local space. This extra energy can be used to produce useful work in external circuits. Tewari has shown that twice as much hydrogen can be generated from an electrolysis cell run from the output of a SPG than if the cell is run directly. It is impossible to rationalize the behavior of this style of electric generator with the ideas of simple conversion and local conservation as they are postulated in the "First Law of Thermodynamics."
In a standard generator, if all losses are ignored for the moment, conventional theory says if 550 Ft-Lbs of work are applied to the input shaft in one second, 746 Watts will be delivered at the output. If I blindly believe that the generator simply has the mysterious ability to convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy, I don't ask the following questions: what is the mechanism of this conversion?, where does the torque go?, and where does the electrical energy come from? The apparent observation that the generated current produces a motoring effect that opposes the input torque should not be interpreted as a vindication of the conservation rule, but as an admission that this is an inefficient way to generate electricity. The Space Power Generator experiences far less drag per unit of electrical output than a standard generator.
This opens up a much larger discussion about the validity of the conversion idea all together. Are there actual and universal equivalents between the various forms of heat, mechanical work, and electricity? At this point, all we know for sure are the various measurements that have been taken from the devices that demonstrate these energy translations. For instance, in 1845, James Joule found that if he placed a small paddle wheel in a bucket of water, he had to apply 772.5 foot-pounds of mechanical work to spin the paddle wheel to raise the temperature of one pound of water, one degree Fahrenheit. This has led to very careful calculations that now set this "universal conversion" between mechanical work and heat at 778.26 FT-Lbs = 1 BTU. For paddle wheels in water, this is no doubt true. But what happens if paddle wheels are not used? Is there another method that does not use paddle wheels in water to convert mechanical work to heat that does the job better, with less expenditure of work for the same heat gained? The answer is yes. In fact, there are numerous patents on record to accomplish this. One uses rotating parallel disks, not unlike the design of Tesla's turbine, to heat water with less than half the mechanical expenditure.
Once again, we have entered a new scientific era where the exact equivalence between mechanical work as foot-pounds, electrical work as watt-hours, and heat work as BTU's is not known! A wide variety of physical experiments have demonstrated a broad range of differing energy translation effects. The intellectual edifice of Clausius' conversion idea is crumbling, and no one should allow their thinking to be constrained by it any longer. The results of physical experiments have all but disproved it. The "First Law of Thermodynamics" should be seen only as an outmoded, intellectual MODEL that is not supported by all of the experimental data. Likewise, the idea of "over-unity" should be abandoned by those working on "free energy" systems as it is an intellectual contradiction based both on the belief in conversion and the ability to circumvent it. "Over-unity" is an oxymoron that should be removed from the vocabulary of the alternative science community.
This brings me back to the other problem presented earlier, namely, the nature of heat itself. Is heat, as Hermann von Helmholtz suggests, simply the random motion of molecular matter, or is it something completely different, whose presence causes molecular matter to exhibit random motion? This is a very long and involved exploration that has already been handled masterfully by Rudolf Steiner in March of 1920 and published as his Warmth Course. I will summarize some of these ideas briefly.
The ancient's believed that there were four "elements" that all physical reality was composed of. These were Earth, Water, Air and Fire. In modern language, we can restate this as follows. There are four "states" that all matter appears as. These are solid, liquid, gas and heat. From an etheric science point of view, heat is the fourth state of matter and the transition state between matter and ether. Here is why. The only difference between the appearance of ice, water, or steam, for example, is its temperature or internal heat condition. Heat is absolutely fundamental in all considerations regarding matter because a change in heat is the only element required to bring about a change of state from solid to liquid or from liquid to gas. In solid matter, the "atoms" are very close together and they bind each other in a way that allows them to hold their shape without being in a container. Heat can be added to the solid and its temperature will rise, correspondingly, until the melting point is reached. At this point, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the solid melts into a liquid. Once all of the material is liquified, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In liquid matter, the "atoms" are less close together and they bind each other in a way that allows the liquid to take the shape of whatever open topped container it is put in. As more heat is added to the liquid, the "atoms" move farther apart until the boiling point is reached. At this point, once again, adding more heat does not raise its temperature, but rather causes the material to change state as the liquid boils into a gas. Once all of the material is gaseous, adding more heat once again causes the temperature to rise. In gaseous matter, the "atoms" are so far apart that they will hold no shape at all and can only be contained by a complete enclosure. As more heat is added to the gas, the "atoms" become so dispersed that eventually, all that is left is the heat. The relationships between heat, temperature, matter and state are quite complex and cannot easily be reduced to simple explanations. Steiner's explorations of these relationships go into great detail, forming a seamless line of logic, backed up by a great deal of experimental data. Anyone interested in the nature of heat should study Rudolf Steiner's Warmth Course.
While this may make no sense to people trained in mechanistic thought processes, it is much closer to the truth about heat than the ideas of Helmholtz, with which Steiner was completely familiar. Helmholtz's idea that the nature of heat can be fully described by the random motions of molecular matter is far too simplistic. It ignores many of the well known behaviors of heat and matter as well as the existence of the Etheric Energy Field. It should be considered an "interesting" historical attempt to describe heat that is not supported by all of the experimental data.
For those who are not familiar with etheric science, it might be useful to review some of the characteristics of the Etheric Energy Field at this time. The Etheric Energy Field is made up of an extremely fine, mass-free fluid. Its activity can be divided into four main levels. These different aspects of the Ether have been called: the Warmth Ether, the Light Ether, the Tone (or Chemical) Ether, and the Life Ether. The Etheric Energy Field, as a whole, penetrates all matter, flows around and through the planet in well defined ways, exhibits elastic characteristics, and spontaneously moves from low concentrations to high concentrations before discharging. Understanding all of these factors has made engineering the weather a practical reality today. Many other amazing technologies also become possible when the ether is fully understood. Likewise, many aspects of today's science that are still confusing eventually become clear.
One area of the greatest confusion lies in the field of electrical science. The entire study of what has been called "static electricity" is just a confusing encounter with the Light Ether as it behaves under certain circumstances. When fully understood, so-called "static electricity" will be seen to be neither static nor electricity. Normal electricity always flows from high potential to low potential and usually requires metallic conductors to flow along. On the other hand, "static electricity" does not discharge in the same way, and readily moves and collects on both conductors and insulators. Because "static electricity" behaves more like ether than electricity, I am going coin a term for this form of energy when it is present in wires and circuits. I call it "ETHERICITY", to distinguish it from electricity all together.
In some ways, ethericity behaves like electricity and in some ways it behaves differently. This has been the source of confusion. Up until now, most people have thought that there was only one kind of energy moving in electrical style circuits. This can now change. Electric appliances are designed to run on the discharge of electric potential from high to low, as in the draining of a battery to power a load. Properly designed circuits employing ethericity run the appliance on the charging phase, as the energy spontaneously moves from low potential to high. Once the behaviors of ethericity are clearly understood, it will be just as easy to run motors and lights from this source as we now do on electricity. In the 1940's, Dr. Wilhelm Reich demonstrated both lighting and motoring effects running on the Etheric Energy Field that he tapped using his "orgone accumulators" and special circuitry. But many other ways have been discovered to harness ethericity. The patent office has many designs of so-called "electrostatic" motors on file that work quite well. They all run on ethericity, including some powered by circuits set up between the ground and a wire suspended high in the air. Many types of capacitors will spontaneously charge up on days with low relative humidity. This, too, is the classic appearance of ethericity. I have seen how an "electrostatic" generator failed to do anything, one humid morning, until the moment that sunlight fell on the metallic surfaces. It then jumped to life. This was one of the most convincing demonstrations I have ever seen that "static electricity" (ethericity) is related to light (the Light Ether).
Here then are some of the known characteristics of ethericity that engineers and inventors should understand:
1) Ethericity can be accumulated from the ground or the air at almost any location
2) It can be "reflected" down wires (this is not conduction)
3) Flows of ethericity can be interrupted by diodes and Mosfet type devices
4) Its potential can be raised or lowered in air core transformers
5) It can be stored in capacitors
6) It will operate neon style lighting, when the potential is high enough
7) It can create fields of opposing forces in coils and motor windings
"Free energy" is here in the Etheric Energy Field. Etheric Energy can be accumulated without the expenditure of work, and then released in controlled ways to perform work, in properly engineered systems. Understanding this fact presents engineers and inventors the clearest and most direct path to follow. Systems that precipitate heat directly from the ether have already been demonstrated in Dr. Reich's accumulator. Placing one of these accumulators over a moving body of water increases the precipitation of heat dramatically. This is a rich vane of truth waiting to reveal its secrets to the systematic researcher. Likewise, power circuits that run on ethericity for lighting and motive power are waiting to be perfected.
Researchers in the "free energy" field should not concern themselves with the ideas presented as the so-called "Laws of Thermodynamics". The "First Law", with its ideas of conversion and conservation, is essentially incorrect. There is no way to convert mechanical energy into etheric energy, actually make one into the other. This one example is enough to disprove the universal interpretation of the conversion idea all together. Beyond this, the energy forms that can be transmuted by the action of certain kinds of machines, apparently do so within a wide range of activity, depending on the geometry of the machine. This throws into question the idea of conservation, especially local conservation. These experimental findings render the "First Law" without any basis in fact. The real universe does not behave in accordance with these ideas.
In the narrow case, the "Second Law" is really only a statement which describes the behavior of heat under certain circumstances. This much is basically true, as it is founded on experimental observation. In the general case, however, the "Second Law" is an intellectual extrapolation that does not accurately describe the behavior of physical reality under all circumstances. It embodies an erroneously concept of a mechanical universe which mysteriously burst forth (Big Bang) as a fully wound spring that has been unwinding ever since ("in a closed system, entropy does not decrease"). It is a lifeless, empty vision that ignores the Source of the energy it started with and closes the minds of its adherents to the solutions at hand.
Learning how to tap the non-thermodynamic forces in nature is the hope of the future. A modern society needs light, heat, and motive power, all of which can be derived directly from the Etheric Energy Field without consuming limited physical resources owned by monopoly interests.
In this society, theoretical science has been elevated to a very high level of prestige. Under this system of belief, the real needs of humanity have not been well served. It is time that these incorrect theories be carefully examined and discarded, so that experimental science can once again take the leading role in defining the nature of physical reality. Only then will Etheric Science be free to offer its bounty of solutions to a desperate and waiting world.
Bibliography
1) The Cancer Biopathy by Dr. Wilhelm Reich
2) Man or Matter by Ernst Lehrs, Rudolf Steiner Press
3) The Cosmic Pulse of Life by Trevor James Constable, Borderland Sciences
4) Warmth Course by Rudolf Steiner, Mercury Press
5) Cosmic Formative Forces by Guenter Wachsmuth, Borderland Sciences
6) The Vril Compendium by Gerry Vassilatos, Borderland Sciences
7) Loom of the Future by Trevor James Constable, Borderland Sciences


Inspection of models and a high-level interface to add constraints during solving.
For an example, see model.c.
|
| bool | clingo_model_type (clingo_model_t *model, clingo_model_type_t *type) |
| | Get the type of the model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_number (clingo_model_t *model, uint64_t *number) |
| | Get the running number of the model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_symbols_size (clingo_model_t *model, clingo_show_type_bitset_t show, size_t *size) |
| | Get the number of symbols of the selected types in the model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_symbols (clingo_model_t *model, clingo_show_type_bitset_t show, clingo_symbol_t *symbols, size_t size) |
| | Get the symbols of the selected types in the model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_contains (clingo_model_t *model, clingo_symbol_t atom, bool *contained) |
| | Constant time lookup to test whether an atom is in a model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_cost_size (clingo_model_t *model, size_t *size) |
| | Get the number of cost values of a model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_cost (clingo_model_t *model, int64_t *costs, size_t size) |
| | Get the cost vector of a model. More...
|
| |
| bool | clingo_model_optimality_proven (clingo_model_t *model, bool *proven) |
| | Whether the optimality of a model has been proven. More...
|
| |
Enumeration for the different model types.
| Enumerator |
|---|
| clingo_model_type_stable_model |
The model represents a stable model.
|
| clingo_model_type_brave_consequences |
The model represents a set of brave consequences.
|
| clingo_model_type_cautious_consequences |
The model represents a set of cautious consequences.
|
- Examples:
- model.c.
Enumeration of bit flags to select symbols in models.
| Enumerator |
|---|
| clingo_show_type_csp |
Select CSP assignments.
|
| clingo_show_type_shown |
Select shown atoms and terms.
|
| clingo_show_type_atoms |
Select all atoms.
|
| clingo_show_type_terms |
Select all terms.
|
| clingo_show_type_extra |
Select symbols added by extensions.
|
| clingo_show_type_all |
Select everything.
|
| clingo_show_type_complement |
Select false instead of true atoms (clingo_show_type_atoms) or terms (clingo_show_type_terms).
|
Constant time lookup to test whether an atom is in a model.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [in] | atom | the atom to lookup |
| [out] | contained | whether the atom is contained |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
Get the associated solve control object of a model.
This object allows for adding clauses during model enumeration.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [out] | control | the resulting solve control object |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
| bool clingo_model_cost |
( |
clingo_model_t * |
model, |
|
|
int64_t * |
costs, |
|
|
size_t |
size |
|
) |
| |
Get the number of cost values of a model.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [out] | size | the number of costs |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
| bool clingo_model_number |
( |
clingo_model_t * |
model, |
|
|
uint64_t * |
number |
|
) |
| |
Get the running number of the model.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [out] | number | the number of the model |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
- Examples:
- model.c.
| bool clingo_model_optimality_proven |
( |
clingo_model_t * |
model, |
|
|
bool * |
proven |
|
) |
| |
Whether the optimality of a model has been proven.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [out] | proven | whether the optimality has been proven |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
- See also
- clingo_model_cost()
Get the type of the model.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | model | the target |
| [out] | type | the type of the model |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful
Add a clause that applies to the current solving step during model enumeration.
- Note
- The Theory Propagation module provides a more sophisticated interface to add clauses - even on partial assignments.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | control | the target |
| [in] | clause | array of literals representing the clause |
| [in] | size | the size of the literal array |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful; might set one of the following error codes:
Get the id of the solver thread that found the model.
- Parameters
-
| [in] | control | the target |
| [out] | id | the resulting thread id |
- Returns
- whether the call was successful


cf.Field¶
-
class
cf.
Field
(properties=None, source=None, copy=True, _use_data=True)[source]¶ Bases:
cf.mixin.propertiesdata.PropertiesData
,cfdm.field.Field
A field construct of the CF data model.
The field construct is central to the CF data model, and includes all the other constructs. A field corresponds to a CF-netCDF data variable with all of its metadata. All CF-netCDF elements are mapped to a field construct or some element of the CF field construct. The field construct contains all the data and metadata which can be extracted from the file using the CF conventions.
The field construct consists of a data array and the definition of its domain (that describes the locations of each cell of the data array), field ancillary constructs containing metadata defined over the same domain, and cell method constructs to describe how the cell values represent the variation of the physical quantity within the cells of the domain. The domain is defined collectively by the following constructs of the CF data model: domain axis, dimension coordinate, auxiliary coordinate, cell measure, coordinate reference and domain ancillary constructs.
The field construct also has optional properties to describe aspects of the data that are independent of the domain. These correspond to some netCDF attributes of variables (e.g. units, long_name and standard_name), and some netCDF global file attributes (e.g. history and institution).
NetCDF interface
The netCDF variable name of the construct may be accessed with the
nc_set_variable
,nc_get_variable
,nc_del_variable
andnc_has_variable
methods.The selection of properties to be written as netCDF global attributes may be accessed with the
nc_global_attributes
,nc_clear_global_attributes
andnc_set_global_attribute
methods.The netCDF variable group structure may be accessed with the
nc_set_variable
,nc_get_variable
,nc_variable_groups
,nc_clear_variable_groups
andnc_set_variable_groups
methods.The netCDF group attributes may be accessed with the
nc_group_attributes
,nc_clear_group_attributes
,nc_set_group_attribute
andnc_set_group_attributes
methods.The netCDF geometry variable group structure may be accessed with the
nc_set_geometry_variable
,nc_get_geometry_variable
,nc_geometry_variable_groups
,nc_clear_variable_groups
andnc_set_geometry_variable_groups
methods.Some components exist within multiple constructs, but when written to a netCDF dataset the netCDF names associated with such components will be arbitrarily taken from one of them. The netCDF variable, dimension and sample dimension names and group structures for such components may be set or removed consistently across all such components with the
nc_del_component_variable
,nc_set_component_variable
,nc_set_component_variable_groups
,nc_clear_component_variable_groups
,nc_del_component_dimension
,nc_set_component_dimension
,nc_set_component_dimension_groups
,nc_clear_component_dimension_groups
,nc_del_component_sample_dimension
,nc_set_component_sample_dimension
,nc_set_component_sample_dimension_groups
,nc_clear_component_sample_dimension_groups
methods.CF-compliance issues for field constructs read from a netCDF dataset may be accessed with the
dataset_compliance
method.Initialization
- Parameters
- properties:
dict
, optional Set descriptive properties. The dictionary keys are property names, with corresponding values. Ignored if the source parameter is set.
- Parameter example:
properties={'standard_name': 'air_temperature'}
Properties may also be set after initialisation with the
set_properties
andset_property
methods.- source: optional
Initialize the properties, data and metadata constructs from those of source.
- copy:
bool
, optional If False then do not deep copy input parameters prior to initialization. By default arguments are deep copied.
- properties:
Inspection¶
Methods
A full description of the field construct. |
|
Return the canonical identity. |
|
Return all possible identities. |
Attributes
Return a description of the construct type. |
|
A canonical identity. |
Selection¶
Methods
Whether or not the construct identity satisfies conditions. |
|
Whether or not the data has a given dimensionality. |
|
Whether or not the netCDF variable name satisfies conditions. |
|
Whether or not properties satisfy conditions. |
|
Whether or not the number of domain axis constructs satisfies conditions. |
|
Whether or not the construct has given units. |
|
Whether or not there are particular metadata constructs. |
Properties¶
Methods
Remove a property. |
|
Get a CF property. |
|
Whether a property has been set. |
|
Set a property. |
|
Return all properties. |
|
Remove all properties. |
|
Set properties. |
Attributes
The add_offset CF property. |
|
The calendar CF property. |
|
Return cell method constructs. |
|
The comment CF property. |
|
The Conventions CF property. |
|
The _FillValue CF property. |
|
The flag_masks CF property. |
|
The flag_meanings CF property. |
|
The flag_values CF property. |
|
The history CF property. |
|
The institution CF property. |
|
The leap_month CF property. |
|
The leap_year CF property. |
|
The long_name CF property. |
|
The missing_value CF property. |
|
The month_lengths CF property. |
|
The references CF property. |
|
The scale_factor CF property. |
|
The source CF property. |
|
The standard_error_multiplier CF property. |
|
The standard_name CF property. |
|
The title CF property. |
|
The units CF property. |
|
The valid_max CF property. |
|
The valid_min CF property. |
|
The valid_range CF property. |
Units¶
Override the units. |
|
Override the calendar of date-time units. |
The |
Data¶
Methods
Remove the data. |
|
Return the data. |
|
Whether a data has been set. |
|
Set the field construct data. |
|
Remove the keys of the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct. |
|
Return the keys of the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of a metadata construct. |
|
Whether the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct have been set. |
|
Set the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct. |
Attributes
A numpy array deep copy of the data array. |
|
The |
|
An independent numpy array of date-time objects. |
|
Return an element of the data array as a standard Python scalar. |
|
The |
|
The number of dimensions in the data array. |
|
A tuple of the data array’s dimension sizes. |
|
The number of elements in the data array. |
|
A numpy array view of the data array. |
Rearranging elements
Roll a cyclic axis so that the given value lies in the first coordinate cell. |
|
Flatten axes of the field. |
|
Flip (reverse the direction of) axes of the field. |
|
Insert a size 1 axis into the data array. |
|
Roll the field along a cyclic axis. |
|
Remove size 1 axes from the data. |
|
Interchange two axes of the data. |
|
Permute the axes of the data array. |
|
Insert size 1 axes into the data array. |
Expanding the data
Expand the field construct by adding a halo to its data. |
Data array mask
Apply masking as defined by the CF conventions. |
|
Count the non-masked elements of the data. |
|
Count the masked elements of the data. |
|
Return the data array missing data value. |
A binary (0 and 1) missing data mask of the data array. |
|
Whether the mask is hard (True) or soft (False). |
|
The mask of the data array. |
|
Mask the array where invalid values occur. |
Changing data values
Called to implement assignment to x[indices]=value |
|
Create a subspace of the field construct. |
|
Create indices that define a subspace of the field construct. |
|
Assign to data elements depending on a condition. |
|
Apply masking as defined by the CF conventions. |
|
Mask the array where invalid values occur. |
Miscellaneous data operations¶
Methods
Set the cyclicity of an axis. |
|
Return or set the period of the data. |
|
Return the name of the file or files containing the data. |
|
Close all files referenced by the field construct. |
|
Partition the data array. |
Metadata constructs¶
Methods
Select a metadata construct by its identity. |
|
Select the key of a metadata construct by its identity. |
|
Remove a metadata construct. |
|
Return a metadata construct. |
|
Whether a metadata construct exists. |
|
Set a metadata construct. |
|
Replace a metadata construct. |
|
Remove the keys of the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct. |
|
Return the keys of the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of a metadata construct. |
|
Whether the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct have been set. |
|
Set the domain axis constructs spanned by the data of the field or of a metadata construct. |
|
Return an auxiliary coordinate construct, or its key. |
|
Select a cell measure construct by its identity. |
|
Select a cell method construct by its identity. |
|
Return a dimension coordinate construct, or its key. |
|
Return a coordinate reference construct, or its key. |
|
Return a dimension coordinate construct, or its key. |
|
Return a domain ancillary construct, or its key. |
|
Return a domain axis construct, or its key. |
|
Return the key of the domain axis construct that is spanned by 1-d coordinate constructs. |
|
Return the position in the data of a domain axis construct. |
|
Return a field ancillary construct, or its key. |
Attributes
Return the metdata constructs. |
|
Return auxiliary coordinate constructs. |
|
Return cell measure constructs. |
|
Return cell method constructs. |
|
Return dimension and auxiliary coordinate constructs. |
|
Return coordinate reference constructs. |
|
Return dimension coordinate constructs. |
|
Return domain ancillary constructs. |
|
Return domain axis constructs. |
|
Return domain axis constructs. |
|
Return field ancillary constructs. |
Miscellaneous¶
Methods
Return a deep copy of the field construct. |
|
Whether two instances are the same. |
|
Compress the field construct. |
|
Convert a metadata construct into a new field construct. |
|
Return the commands that would create the field construct. |
|
Return the radius used for calculating cell areas in spherical polar coordinates. |
|
Uncompress the field construct. |
|
Join a sequence of fields together. |
Attributes
A |
|
Whether or not there are cell bounds. |
|
True if the variable is an auxiliary coordinate object. |
|
True if the variable is a dimension coordinate object. |
|
True if the variable is a cell measure object. |
|
The number of axes in the domain. |
|
|
|
Always False. |
|
Always False. |
|
Always False. |
NetCDF¶
Methods
Remove the netCDF variable name. |
|
Return the netCDF variable name. |
|
Whether the netCDF variable name has been set. |
|
Set the netCDF variable name. |
|
Return the selection of properties to be written as netCDF global attributes. |
|
Remove the selection of properties to be written as netCDF global attributes. |
|
Select a property to be written as a netCDF global attribute. |
|
Set properties to be written as netCDF global attributes. |
|
A report of problems encountered whilst reading the field construct from a dataset. |
Domain axes¶
Set dimensions to be cyclic. |
|
Return domain axis constructs. |
|
|
|
Alias of |
|
Return the canonical name for an axis. |
|
Return the size of a domain axis construct. |
|
Set the cyclicity of an axis. |
|
Return the domain axes for the data array dimensions. |
|
Returns True if the given axis is cyclic. |
|
Return the axes of a domain item of the field. |
|
Return the axes of items of the field. |
Subspacing¶
Return a subspace of the field construct defined by indices. |
|
Create a subspace of the field construct. |
|
Create indices that define a subspace of the field construct. |
Mathematical operations¶
Trigonometrical and hyperbolic functions
Take the trigonometric inverse cosine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the inverse hyperbolic cosine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the trigonometric inverse sine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the inverse hyperbolic sine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the trigonometric inverse tangent of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the inverse hyperbolic tangent of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the trigonometric cosine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the hyperbolic cosine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the trigonometric sine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the hyperbolic sine of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the trigonometric tangent of the data element-wise. |
|
Take the hyperbolic tangent of the data array. |
Rounding and truncation
The ceiling of the data, element-wise. |
|
Limit the values in the data. |
|
Floor the data array, element-wise. |
|
Round the data to the nearest integer, element-wise. |
|
Round the data to the given number of decimals. |
|
Truncate the data, element-wise. |
Statistical collapses
Collapse axes of the field. |
|
Perform moving window calculations along an axis. |
|
Return a field containing horizontal cell areas. |
|
Alias for |
|
The unweighted mean the data array. |
|
The unweighted average of the maximum and minimum of the data array. |
|
Alias for |
|
The absolute difference between the maximum and minimum of the data array. |
|
The number of non-missing data elements in the data array. |
|
The sum of the data array. |
|
The unweighted sample standard deviation of the data array. |
|
The unweighted sample variance of the data array. |
|
Return weights for the data array values. |
Exponential and logarithmic functions
The exponential of the data, element-wise. |
|
The logarithm of the data array. |
Derivatives
Return the derivative along the specified axis. |
Convolution filters
Convolve the field construct along the given axis with the specified filter. |
|
Perform moving window calculations along an axis. |
Cumulative sums
Return the field cumulatively summed along the given axis. |
Binning operations
Collapse the data values that lie in N-dimensional bins. |
|
Return the indices of the bins to which each value belongs. |
|
Compute percentiles of the data along the specified axes. |
Data array operations¶
Adding and removing elements
The unique elements of the data. |
Miscellaneous data array operations
Partition the data array. |
|
True if the data array is scalar. |
Regridding operations¶
Return the field with the specified Cartesian axes regridded onto a new grid. |
|
Return the field regridded onto a new latitude-longitude grid. |
Date-time operations¶
The day of each date-time data array element. |
|
An independent numpy array of date-time objects. |
|
The hour of each date-time data array element. |
|
The minute of each date-time data array element. |
|
The month of each date-time data array element. |
|
The second of each date-time data array element. |
|
The year of each date-time data array element. |
Convert reference time data values to have new units. |
Logic functions¶
Truth value testing
Test whether all data elements evaluate to True. |
|
Test whether any data elements evaluate to True. |
Comparison
Test whether all data are element-wise equal to other, broadcastable data. |
|
Whether two instances are the same. |
|
True if two fields are equivalent, False otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Set operations
The unique elements of the data. |
Aliases¶
Methods
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias of |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
|
Alias for |
Attributes
Alias for |
Arithmetic and comparison operations¶
Arithmetic, bitwise and comparison operations are defined on a field construct as element-wise operations on its data which yield a new field construct or, for augmented assignments, modify the field construct’s data in-place.
Relational operators
The rich comparison operator |
|
The rich comparison operator |
|
The rich comparison operator |
|
The rich comparison operator |
|
The rich comparison operator |
|
The rich comparison operator |
Binary arithmetic operators
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operations |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
Binary arithmetic operators with reflected (swapped) operands
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
|
The binary arithmetic operations |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
Augmented arithmetic assignments
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The augmented arithmetic assignment |
|
The binary arithmetic operation |
Unary arithmetic operators
The unary arithmetic operation |
|
The unary arithmetic operation |
|
The unary arithmetic operation |
Binary bitwise operators
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
Binary bitwise operators with reflected (swapped) operands
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
|
The binary bitwise operation |
Augmented bitwise assignments
The augmented bitwise assignment |
|
The augmented bitwise assignment |
|
The augmented bitwise assignment |
|
The augmented bitwise assignment |
|
The augmented bitwise assignment |
Unary bitwise operators
The unary bitwise operation |
Groups¶
Methods
Return the netCDF variable group hierarchy. |
|
Set the netCDF variable group hierarchy. |
|
Remove the netCDF variable group hierarchy. |
|
Return the selection of properties to be written as netCDF group attributes. |
|
Select a property to be written as a netCDF group attribute. |
|
Set properties to be written as netCDF group attributes. |
|
Remove the selection of properties to be written as netCDF group attributes. |
|
Return the netCDF geometry variable group hierarchy. |
|
Set the netCDF geometry variable group hierarchy. |
|
Remove the netCDF geometry variable group hierarchy. |
Special¶
Methods
Called by the |
|
Return a subspace of the field construct defined by indices. |
|
Called by the |
|
Called by the |


ABOUT.
Maintenance Tracker App is an application that provides users with the ability to reach out to operations or repairs department regarding repair or maintenance requests and monitor the status of their request.


Former US President Jimmy Carter in hospital for surgery
95-year-old Carter will undergo an operation on Tuesday to relieve pressure on his brain following a number of falls.
Former United States President Jimmy Carter was admitted to an Atlanta hospital on Monday for a procedure to relieve brain pressure from bleeding caused by recent falls, the Carter Center said in a statement.
The procedure to relieve pressure on Carter's brain was scheduled for Tuesday morning, the Carter Center said, adding that the 95-year-old was "resting comfortably," and that his wife, Rosalynn, was with him.
More:
No information was provided about the circumstances leading to his hospitalisation.
Last month, Carter was admitted to Emory University Hospital three weeks after suffering a minor pelvic fracture in a fall at his home in Plains, Georgia. He was released from hospital a few days after that accident.
A previous fall earlier in October required stitches to Carter's face, but he resumed work soon after on a homebuilding project for the nonprofit group Habitat for Humanity.
In May, the former Democratic president broke his hip, also at home, requiring him to undergo surgery.
He was hospitalised briefly in 2017 for dehydration and was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2015.
Respected humanitarian
Carter, a former peanut farmer and Georgia governor, defeated Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976 to become the US's 39th president, serving a single four-year term in the White House.
His presidency was overshadowed by an economic recession, an energy crisis and the taking of US hostages by Iran, but he also played a leading role in brokering the Camp David Accords leading to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
He lost his 1980 re-election bid to Republican Ronald Reagan.
After leaving office in 1981, Carter went on to become a noted humanitarian. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his efforts towards finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts, advancing democracy and human rights and promoting economic and social development.
He and his wife founded the Carter Center in 1982 to carry on their international and humanitarian work.


In the digital world, computers have taken over our lives. We keep very sensitive and personal things on computers, and our internet habits can say a lot about us. Even metadata alone. The problem with the NSA/GCHQ is not that they're spying. It's that they're spying on everyone. This is not to say that there is some government worker actually watching whatever you do, but all this information is being pulled into a database "just in case". The amount of info they've been collecting could be gauged by the fact the NSA built a datacenter for the storage of data.
In democratic countries at least, the right to privacy and protection against unreasonable searches is protected. The United States has the 4th Amendment. Canada has it covered under section 8 of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. The mass spying of these agencies says otherwise. But rights are rights. They were never meant to be fought for. They are just there. But now to truly keep the right to privacy, now we have to fight for it.
United States 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.