Science > Physics > correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Archimedes Plutonium" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2005 01:18:47 AM |
| Object: |
correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:31:01 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:22:04 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I think that this Superconductor Formula should look like this:
S = (electropositive_1 + electronegative_1) X (.._2 + .._2) ... x
T_c
___________________________
unit-cell-distance squared
where the numerator is multiplication just like in Coulombs Law and
where
the electropositive atoms are added to the electronegative and then
multiplied over their full unit cell atoms and multiplied by the
transition
temperature also in the numerator. The denominator has only the
distance
term of a unit cell distance and is squared just as in the Coulomb
Law.
I realize that none of the Maxwell Equations, especially Coulomb's Law
has no
term for Temperature. And I believe this is one of the most important
future
revisions of the Maxwell theory to include a temperature term into the
equations.
Now perhaps I can sneek a temperature term into energy by replacement
of time
where temperature is the inverse of time.
But I am optimistic that I need not sneek any temperature term into
the
Maxwell theory and that I can openly introduce a temperature term.
Magnetism
is affected by temperature. Electric current is affected by
temperature. And
superconductivity is mostly about temperature. So there is a great
call and
need to revise the Maxwell theory so that temperature is embodied in
the
equations.
Messing around and playing around some more tonight, I feel optimistic
that
the above Coulomb formula look-alike maybe just the key to mathematize
superconductivity. I say that because with a temperature term then
every atom
and every molecule is superconductive at a low enough Kelvin
temperature and
that the temperature never gets to zero itself. And confident that as
the
lattice cell distance increases as the number of atoms per cell
increases that
the T_c increases to its maximum. The unit-cell distance of the 90K
superconductor is much smaller than the unit-cell distance of the 125K
superconductor. And the pure elemental superconductors have the
tiniest
distance and thus yield near zero temperatures such as mercury with a
T_c of
4K.
So, hopefully, if the above works out then there exists an upper
limit. An
upper limit based on the fact that electropositive and electronegative
has an
upper limit with cesium and fluorine and based on the fact that unit
cell
distance has an upper limit. That the 125K perovskite with its oxygen
atoms of
10+x number is close to its limit as far as unit-cell distance. So
125K to
about 130K is about the upper limit of temperature for a
superconductor. So
that cesium with flourine with unit cell distance dictate an upper
limit of
T_c temperature.
Never did I imagine some 20 years back that someday I would end up
correcting the venerable Newton of his own laws. And in the process
linking diverse subjects of Thermodynamics to Mechanics just in one
simple term.
We know Newton's 2nd Law is Force = ma (summation)
But Newton never needed temperature because it never really was
important for his applications. And we ignored temperature in Newtonian
Mechanics but also its magnificent blossom of Maxwell theory.
I cannot make a Superconductivity Formula as a Coulomb look alike law
because I cannot enter a term of temperature.
There is no way I can squeeze a temperature term into formulas that all
have a mass X acceleration ending.
So, what to do?
Simple, Newton was wrong and for me to slip into the 2nd Law a
temperature term that corrects Newtonian Mechanics and corrects Maxwell
theory and thence gives a Superconductivity Formula.
Newton was wrong and Maxwell was wrong. Both theories needed the initial
conditions term of a temperature.
So Newton's 2nd Law should have been Force = maT where T is the kelvin
temperature.
Newton overlooked it because temperature was not relevant to most of his
calculations where F=ma can get by with a decent answer. And Maxwell
could not say that Newton was wrong and to put F=maT and so developed
the Maxwell theory without temperature, even though it was obvious to
Maxwell that magnetism is sharply affected by the ambient temperature
and all of electromagnetism is affected by the circumstance of
temperature.
But not until Superconductivity came along that temperature becomes the
crucial number one issue of the physics phenomenon. And although 20th
century physicists were sidetracked into falsely believing
superconductivity is a quantum phenomenon such as the BCS theory (which
is a fake theory), whence instead superconductivity is fully within the
realm of Newtonian and Maxwell theory. Because superconductivity is
fully in the realm of Maxwell theory because it is just merely the push
of electropositive and the pull of electronegative atoms that creates
what I call "self automated current" if the temperature is low enough.
So, because Superconductivity is fully in the realm of Newtonian and
Maxwell theory implies that I must pronounce that Newton's 2nd Law is
incomplete and that Maxwell's synthesis of the 4 laws of Maxwell theory
are also incomplete.
What I do is merely add a Temperature term to F=ma. It becomes F=maT.
When we compute a force such as gravity or Coulomb we generally can
ignore the temperature in which the action takes place. But that was old
and shoddy physics.
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means the temperature
term has to be included in the Maxwell theory as well.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 10:56:29 AM |
|
|
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means
.....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't think
so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula forSuperconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 11:38:42 AM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means
....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't think
so.
I think you meant to say that it would run faster in summer than winter
because the temperature is higher in summer.
When we look at Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Laws at present and want to
compute with those laws we are faced with the untidy situation of "initial
conditions" that they are under vacuum conditions or room temperature
conditions are assumed etc etc. In other words, physicists ignore initial
conditions when ignoring is feasible. But that does not make those Laws good
science, does it. We have the modern day habit of saying this law is this
formula and to set aside initial conditions as if they are bothersome and
messy. When in fact, to be a "good physicist" is to incorporate the
conditions into the Law itself. So we do not fall into the laziness that a
formula is a Law of physics and then make a ten page list of the conditions
for which that formula applies.
Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Laws were okay up until the mid 20th century by
listing the most simple formula for the laws and then setting aside a
mountain of conditions and either ignoring the conditions or thinking that
the conditions were just not relevant.
But in the mid 20th century superconductivity increased in importance to
society. Superconductivity is a Maxwell phenomenon. And with
superconductivity we no longer can put temperature as a initial condition to
be ignored. Maxwell theory ignored temperature and pressure especially for
magnetism but that is another story.
Newton's force law (his 2nd law) used to be F = ma (vector summation) but he
ignored temperature for it was never relevant and he could set it aside as
one of those initial conditions that can be ignored.
So the easiest correction to Newton's 2nd Law is to say F = maT where T is
kelvin temperature. However, I may end up having to put a form of the Ideal
Gas Law into F = ma. Remember the ideal gas law of PV = nRT? We can sort of
think of pressure as force. We can sort of think of volume as area in
Coulomb's Law where inverse square of distance is similar to the volume in
the ideal gas law. So that leaves temperature in the numerator.
To see if any of my above makes sense would be to see if plugging in the
temperature in this Coulomb-look-alike formula for superconductivity:
S = (electropositive_1 + electronegative_1) X (.._2 + .._2) ... xT_c
___________________________
unit-cell-distance squared
Try Hg at 4K, and Niobium Tin at 23K, and Ba-La-Cu-O at 35K,
and Y-Ba2-Cu3-O7 at 90 K, and TL2-Ca2-Ba2-Cu3-O10 at 125K.
What that formula for superconductivity implies is that the unit cell
distance of the 23K superconductor is about 23/4 is approx 6sqrt times larger
than the unit cell distance of mercury. And the unit cell distance of
Ba-La-Cu-O at 35K is approx 35/23 sqrt larger than the unit cell distance of
niobium-tin superconductor. And the unit cell distance of TL2-Ca2-Ba2-Cu3-O10
is approx 125/35 sqrt larger than the unit cell distance of Ba-La-Cu-O.
If that is true then I have found the proper (some details need adjustment)
formula for Superconductivity and that the Newtons and Maxwells laws need
revision with a temperature term.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
16 Feb 2005 03:01:53 AM |
|
|
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:421233A1.195CAC16@iw.net...
CWatters wrote:
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means
....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't
think
so.
I think you meant to say that it would run faster in summer than winter
because the temperature is higher in summer.
No.
According to you...
a=F/mT
so the larger T the smaller is a.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 12:24:25 PM |
|
|
Dear Archimedes Plutonium:
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:421233A1.195CAC16@iw.net...
CWatters wrote:
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means
....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't
think
so.
I think you meant to say that it would run faster in summer than winter
because the temperature is higher in summer.
Put acceleration and temperature on opposite sides of the equal sign:
F/m *1/a = T (gag!)
If T goes up (all other things being equal), acceleration goes down.
If you want to call this "running faster", go ahead.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula forSuperconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 10:32:02 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:
Dear Archimedes Plutonium:
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:421233A1.195CAC16@iw.net...
CWatters wrote:
So by making Newton's 2nd Law that of F= maT that means
....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't
think
so.
I think you meant to say that it would run faster in summer than winter
because the temperature is higher in summer.
Put acceleration and temperature on opposite sides of the equal sign:
F/m *1/a = T (gag!)
If T goes up (all other things being equal), acceleration goes down.
If you want to call this "running faster", go ahead.
David A. Smith
David, there is the Ideal Gas Law of PV = nRT.
I do not mind, and I think most people would not mind in seeing or
perceiving "pressure" as a crude form of "force".
So we can transform Ideal Gas Law to that of
P = nR T
____
V
and we know that Volume is a cube of distance measure.
And we know that in Coulomb Law of inverse square, that square is an area
measure of distance.
So what differences do we have between the Coulomb Law (or law of gravity)
and the Ideal Gas Law? Very little difference. We have Pressure instead of
Force and we have volume instead of area (cube vice square).
So, David, why should you be troubled with T = Fd^2/ma
when you would not be troubled with T = Pd^3/nR
What exactly is the difference between Pressure and Force???? Because to me,
that tiny difference can be overcome so that the Ideal Gas Law is another
form of the Coulomb Law or the Law of Gravity. We can think of charges
having pressure on other charges and we can think of mass as having
"pressure on other masses" (Remember the Feynmann suggestion that gravity
was a shadow like effect only Feynmann did not have the Atom Totality where
mass is embedded in an electron-space of the 5f6 but this is far afield of
the discussion on superconductivity).
My point is that PV = nRT is another form of the Coulomb Law once Pressure
is converted to Force and Volume converted to area.
But none of this is as important as the experimental details of whether the
superconductors obey a Coulomb like formula with Temperature in the
numerator. Because if the formula works-- is all the proof in the world.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 10:40:34 PM |
|
|
Dear Archimedes Plutonium:
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:4212CCC2.712F0E2@iw.net...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:
....
....Your car would be slower in summer than it is in winter? I don't
think
so.
I think you meant to say that it would run faster in summer than
winter
because the temperature is higher in summer.
Put acceleration and temperature on opposite sides of the equal sign:
F/m *1/a = T (gag!)
If T goes up (all other things being equal), acceleration goes down.
If you want to call this "running faster", go ahead.
David, there is the Ideal Gas Law of PV = nRT.
I do not mind, and I think most people would not mind in seeing or
perceiving "pressure" as a crude form of "force".
It is not any form of force. It requires an area to be a force.
So we can transform Ideal Gas Law to that of
P = nR T
____
V
and we know that Volume is a cube of distance measure.
And we know that in Coulomb Law of inverse square, that square is an area
measure of distance.
Not really. It does not seem to have the necessary value of "pi" to be an
area.
So what differences do we have between the Coulomb Law (or law of
gravity)
and the Ideal Gas Law?
Temperature, material specific properties, a count of particles, a
specific volume, and NO referent to a distance from a source.
Very little difference.
Only every term. Since you ramble on from here, I am done.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula forSuperconductivity |
16 Feb 2005 01:39:43 PM |
|
|
Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:32:02 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most everything snipped)
My point is that PV = nRT is another form of the Coulomb Law once Pressure
is converted to Force and Volume converted to area.
But none of this is as important as the experimental details of whether the
superconductors obey a Coulomb like formula with Temperature in the
numerator. Because if the formula works-- is all the proof in the world.
--- quoting an Abstract found on Internet ---
Y F Yang et al 1995 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 8 874-878
Superconductivity in the triple-perovskite La-Ca-Ba-Cu-O system
Y F Yang, D S Wu, H -C I Kao, C M Wang and M K Wu
Dept. of Chem., Tamkang Univ., Tamsui, Taiwan
Print publication: Issue 12 (December 1995)
Abstract. Three series of single-phase La-Ca-Ba-Cu-O compounds with tetragonal
triple-perovskite structure and respective nominal compositions of
La4-xCaxBa3Cu7Oy (LC series, 0.50<or=x<or=1.15), La3CaxBa4-xCu7Oy (CB series,
0<or=x<or=1.25) and La3.5-0.5xCaxBa3.5-0.5xCu7Oy (LCB
series, 0<or=x<or=1.25) were prepared by either a solid state reaction method
or a polymeric citrate precursor method. All the single-phase materials were
superconducting except for samples containing small x in the LCB series.
Unit-cell parameters, such as a axes, c axes and cell volume, decreased with
increasing Ca substitution. In general, the Tc and hole concentration (p)
increased with increasing x from x=0 to x=1.00. In other words, evidence of
hole
doping was observed during Ca substitution that was the main reason for the
increase of the Tc from 0 to 80 K. The optimal Tc was observed in a region
close to the formula of La3CaBa3Cu7Oy which had a formula per unit celt of
La1.29Ca0.43Ba1.29Cu3Oz where z=7.104, p=0.308, a axis =0.3879 nm
and Tc(zero)=80 K.
--- end quoting ---
I need a huge amount of data to see if the formula fits superconductivity:
S = maT/unit-cell-distance^2
which is a Coulomb Force Law look-alike
begot from the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT where
P = nRT/V where volume is distance^3
So I am combining Coulomb's Law with Ideal Gas Law where both have
the same mathematical **form** and I transform Force into Pressure and volume
into distance^2
It is comforting to know that both have the same "math form" that I can take
Force as a form of Pressure and thereby introduce a Temperature parameter into
NEwton's 2nd Law and into all of the Maxwell Equations theory.
The abstract above does not give me enough data to see whether my Pressure
formula agrees with the increase of Tc. Whether the differences of distances in
unit cell matches the difference in Tc as per inverse square or inverse volume.
In this theory of superconductivity as a enhancement of electropositive and
electronegative atoms to the point where the push by electropositivity and pull
by electronegativity forces or pressurizes a self automated current.
Electronegativity with cold temperatures creates superconducitivity.
The abstract says that hole doping directly caused the increase in Tc. But I
was unable to get numbers data of how that hole doping altered the volume or
the distance^2 of the unit-cell of those perovskites.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Formula for Superconductivity = electronegativities multiplied X T X R/ |
17 Feb 2005 01:55:54 AM |
|
|
Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:43 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)
In this theory of superconductivity as a enhancement of electropositive and
electronegative atoms to the point where the push by electropositivity and pull
by electronegativity forces or pressurizes a self automated current.
Electronegativity with cold temperatures creates superconducitivity.
The abstract says that hole doping directly caused the increase in Tc. But I
was unable to get numbers data of how that hole doping altered the volume or
the distance^2 of the unit-cell of those perovskites.
Unlike the BCS theory that compartmentalizes every new discovery and never
connects superconductors to other superconductors not to mention the intractable
connecting of superconductors to normal conductors. So the BCS theory is a
disconnect theory. Whereas my theory of Superconductivity as merely the
maximization of electronegativity-- push and pull of atoms creating a self
automated current inside the material. The Electronegativity theory ties and links
normal conductors to superconductivity because there is no strange quantum
behaviour. All conductivity whether superconduction or normal conduction is
explained by Maxwell theory of electronegativity.
So I would have to explain why silver is the highest normal conductor. And I do
that easily and simply by pointing out that the element whose electronegativity is
in the midpoint-average between cesium and flourine and it happens to be silver.
And silver is the element of most orderly packing in closed cubic moreso than
copper or gold. And silver has that lone electron of its outer s orbital to serve
as the "aspiring self automated current" for which in superconductors the self
automated current is reached.
So at room temperature, silver is the highest conductor and as we cool the
temperature we enhance the Electronegativity and we enhance the order of the atoms
in the compound so cold to reach superconductivity where the current flows without
resistance.
So the formula for superconductivity applies to normal conductivity because this
theory does not recognize separate physical phenomenon in conductivity and that
superconduction is merely a form of normal regular conduction.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula forSuperconductivity |
16 Feb 2005 02:05:19 PM |
|
|
Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Charlie Spalton wrote:
(snip what I wrote)
"What exactly is the difference between Pressure and Force????" - see a high
school or equivalent textbook. The difference is not "tiny", as you might
well find.
"Pressure on other masses"? I can just feel the gravity pushing me away
from the earth as I step off a diving board, whilst the sun pushes the earth
into interstellar space.
If the formula works, you are probably on to something. In this case, it
doesn't, and you're not. Sorry.
Charlie
It is a shame that most scientists seldom know of theoretical math. They take
math as practical math not as theory. It was theory of math that led Dirac to
know that the positron existed and thus tidy up the Schrodinger Eq into the
Dirac Equation. Dirac sensed the math incompleteness.
Much in the same way I am sensing the math incompleteness as long as Ideal Gas
Law is separate from Coulomb Law. Like Dirac, I see that both have the
identical ** Math Form**.
P = nRT/V where V is d^3
Coulomb Force = q1q2 r/d^2
So there is not much to change or alter to make Pressure into Force. Both will
have a temperature in numerator. Volume will turn to area.
I remember in one of Feynmann's small paperbacks "Character of Physical Law"
??? perhaps. Anyway, Feynmann is giving a historical sketch of various models
to account for gravity. One of those models intrigued me. It said something
about gravity being a result of the flooding of the cosmos with some particle
of energy and thus since the Sun is so huge that it blocks some of those
particles that would have hit Earth and pushed Earth away from the Sun and
leaving a resultant pull inwards towards the Sun. Feynmann never had the
AtomTotality theory and in the AtomTotality theory gravity becomes a force as a
result of the Electron Space Interaction. That the galaxies are part of the 5f6
of 231Pu and gravity is merely the differences of Coulomb repulsions of the 6
electrons in 5f6. That means what Feynmann described as a flooding of the
Cosmos of some particle for which huge objects such as the Sun have a shadow
effect on planets to make them fall into the Sun yielding the force of gravity.
But enough of gravity for I am knee deep into superconductivity.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilco Oelen" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
15 Feb 2005 02:51:55 AM |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
<lots of nonsense snipped>
So Newton's 2nd Law should have been Force = maT where T is the
kelvin
temperature.
<even more nonsense snipped>
Please go out and play with your pebbles. Let others do the real work
and don't disturb this group anymore with your nonsense!
Wilco
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: correcting Newton's 2nd Law of Motion Re: Formula for Superconductivity |
19 Feb 2005 02:10:46 PM |
|
|
If you don't answer this goof he will probably wander away to
another group.
On 15 Feb 2005 00:51:55 -0800, "Wilco Oelen" <photo@woelen.nl> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
<lots of nonsense snipped>
So Newton's 2nd Law should have been Force = maT where T is the
kelvin
temperature.
<even more nonsense snipped>
Please go out and play with your pebbles. Let others do the real work
and don't disturb this group anymore with your nonsense!
Wilco
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: experiment proof that BCS is false and electronegativity theory of |
15 Feb 2005 01:41:11 AM |
|
|
Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:18:47 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip all except this paragraph)
But not until Superconductivity came along that temperature becomes the
crucial number one issue of the physics phenomenon. And although 20th
century physicists were sidetracked into falsely believing
superconductivity is a quantum phenomenon such as the BCS theory (which
is a fake theory), whence instead superconductivity is fully within the
realm of Newtonian and Maxwell theory. Because superconductivity is
fully in the realm of Maxwell theory because it is just merely the push
of electropositive and the pull of electronegative atoms that creates
what I call "self automated current" if the temperature is low enough.
And this would be a simple experimental proof that BCS is false and that my
Electronegativity Superconduction theory is true. If we cool a
superconductor to its T_c and cool it even further below T_c we should be
able to register a tiny self current. Not an applied current but a self
automated current. Because in the Electronegativity theory of
superconduction it is the electropositive push and the electronegative pull
that creates a current free of friction. BCS wants to explain
superconduction as a pairing of electrons. Electronegativity wants to
explain superconduction as a array of atoms whose electropositive push and
whose electronegative pull are both so strong as to create a self-automated
flow of electrons.
So if my theory is correct then once the T_c temperature is reached and
gone below the T_c temperature then a precise measurement should register a
tiny current flow absent of all applied current. The electronegativity of
atoms in a superconductor create a self-automated flow of electrons.
And then an applied electric current to a superconductor wants those excess
electrons to flow out free of friction.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
