The Importance of Recycling :: essays research papers

The Importance of Recycling Have you ever wonder what can you do about the bottles and cans you find around you? People that doesn?t care about the world being clean is littering the place. It makes things very difficult to put up for. Recycling cans and bottles can help save the earth form waste and trash buildup and can make new things. I think that recycling should be mandatory and there should be recycling cans in various locations at school and everywhere else. One reason is that recycling can help save the earth from waste and trash build-up. For example, fifty percent of roofing and construction on houses is made from recycled aluminum cans. Using recycled materials to produce new products costs less money and less energy than new materials. It can also save valuable landfill space. People have trash everyday. Pretty much anything is recyclable. If you throw them away, it?s a waste of natural resources, a waste of energy, and a waste of money. Instead people should take the time collect these things and put some effort into helping in the world we live in. If you are desperately trying to find a way to make money, recycling can solve that problem. You?ll be paid back for the effort. You can earn money from recycling. Many recycling centers pay CRV for cans and bottles. Many people wouldn?t want to miss out on a moneymaking opportunity. It?s a good way of fundraising, too. Most importantly, it saves lives. We should all learn the importance of recycling. For example, some sea lions won?t get stuck in plastics if we recycle. We would also breathe better air. We can recycle and aluminum can and put it back on the shelf for something useful. If we just leave it in the landfill, it?ll decompose and it?ll be of no use. It?ll also reduce pollution or else it?ll make a new one.

Northern Lights by Philip Pullman Essay

Analysis of northern lights how the author presents the characters within the novel for example looking at animal symbolism. Lord Asriels daemon is the Snow leopard. It is elegant as it moves with grace and speed, it seems royal as she slinks with confidence an power in every stride. Lord Ariel is a serious man he was heartless and cruel to his own daughter. on one occasion in the book he grabs her forcefully by the arm. He is an arrogant character, who is feared and respected. â€Å"His daemon growled with deep savage rumble that made Lyra suddenly aware of what it would be like to have teeth meeting in her throat.† Having this animal as lord Asriels daemon reinforces the more negative and suspicious feelings towards him. That he is as powerful as he is dangerous. He is, in many ways just like his daemon; cold hearted, vicious, strong in body and mind. â€Å"†¦all his movements were large and perfectly balanced, like those of a wild animal and when he appeared in a room like this he seemed a wild animal held in a cage to small for it.† He as well as his daemon had elegance, and the author even compared lord Asriel himself to a wild animal. His daemon, was enticing with lush fur so beautiful, yet she is the predator, the hunter, fierce and untamed, like her master, the leopard seems silent but deadly, sweet but if provoked you are left vulnerable to her attack. You need beware when lord Asriel is on the prowl. Martin Lanselius has a serpent daemon, the characteristic of witch people tend not to trust as they’re sly, sneaky, slimy and deceitful. Martin Lanselius is one of the people on the which’s council so far he seems fair, just an kind. â€Å"The little green serpent daemon raised it’s head from the consul’s collar and whispered tongue flickeringly in his ear†. By using the words whispered tongue flickeringly, It makes you imagine the slimy tongue harsh in your ear, it makes you feel uneasy, by whispered it seems sneaky and suspicious like he has something to hide. Typically a snake or serpent is bad, they trick and deceive.*1 This gives us a very negative opinion of Martin Lanseluis, and without his daemon it wouldn’t be there. We are influenced by the serpent daemon, especially because it contradicts so drastically; the mean lying snake, with the sweet and caring Martin Larnselius. Ma Costa’s daemon is a pack animal, a wolf like dog. They are playful, full of spirit, loyal and very protective, especially those in their fellow pack. It’s easy to see the cute lovable exterior, but the wolf in them makes him stronger, with force and determination the wolf attacks it’s prey, with razor sharp teeth he cuts through the skin and sinks them deep into the flesh. They can be very dangerous, very vicious. Ma Costa is both loyal and confident sweet and gentle to her family and friends imparticular. But can be bad-tempered. When on one occasion Lyra tried to steal Ma Costa boat, she struck Lyra her across the face but previously she watched over Lyra as a baby. â€Å"†¦a great grey dog bent down gently to lick Pentaliments wild cat-head†. This shows how kind he is even to strangers he is welcoming. This is one of the few things we hear about the daemon so far. I think the influence by the dog is both positive and negative, positive because you think first of the innocent looking dog which will protect it’s family. But also negative when you think how dangerous a wolf can be. Like the snow leopard the wolf is a hunters. But you don’t get told a lot about the daemon therefore the influence to Ma Costa is minimal. Farder Coram had Sophonax, his daemon cat. She moved with grace and confidence, her soft fur warm and inviting. Her presence was soothing and mysterious. Farder Coram was quite old, however his mind unchanged by time, still sharp and alert. But his withered old body looks frail and tired. Forder Coram is just like his daemon as he is confident wise, but with an air of mystery like he’s not giving anything away. Even though you don’t know him he seems friendly like he’s known you for years â€Å"Sophonax†¦was golden eyed, and elegant beyond measure, fully twice as large as a real cat, and richly furred.† This emphasizes the appeal and makes the cat seem heavenly, like it’s magnificent and extraordinary. I think the daemon gives us an even more positive opinion of Farder Coram. â€Å"He could not walk without leaning on two sticks and he trembled constantly like an aspen leaf. His mind was sharp and clear he was a powerful man†. This shows how weak he looked, but how strong minded he was. By having this unique cat makes me think that when Farder Coram was younger he was lively an adventure. But still he was every bit as admired, and was adventurous on the inside.

Leadership, values, and the bible Essay

The Bible is a book that refers to collections of canonical text and religious writings that has its origins in Judeo-Christian traditions. The Bible is not a mere bulk of texts, but in fact a collection of books that process within it various historical traditions and accounts of the religion of Christianity. Now, it is important for us to understand that referring to the Bible does not necessarily point towards the Bible we all know of. In fact, there is a Jewish version of the Bible which is often referred to as the Hebrew Bible, a collection of 39 books which is the foundation of the said religion. According to believers, it is God’s direct word transcribed through human hands but inspired by divine means. The Christian tradition divides the Bible into two parts, the previous consisting of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament. The Bible had been originally written in Greek and many versions exist as of today, but all claiming that it has preserved the original essence in order to hold the argument that it has been inspired by God and in fact are the transcribed words of the divinity. Now the question of having the Bible as our main and central point of reference for this paper is how authoritative it really is. Is it merely a collection of fictional works or indeed something that could be attested to by many of its authorities to be direct words and transcriptions of divinity? And the more important and pressing question is can it still be relied on after almost 2000 years of existence and could the stories and works found inside still be applicable for modern setting? First, the argument of time. Although it is also true that the Bible could be dated as long as 2000 years old for the King James version – more or less the same version that we are reading now if we are Roman Catholics – the totality of the Old Testament had been written much more before that. In fact, the Jewish religion, perhaps dating as long as 3000 years ago, claims that most of the text of the Old Testament were one of the most earlier writings second only to Zoroastrianism. The first books of the Bible had been written in Egyptian papyrus, ended its only much later that it had been translated into Greek. When it comes to academic text, time is indeed a valuable factor in considering its impacts to modern society. In order to reaffirm its importance, perhaps it would be wise for us to look back at that time and realize that most of the books that were written and created in that eon of human history had indeed profound effects and how our society and our thoughts as a collective society had been affected. Just take Plato’s book the Republic for example. It is basically one of the oldest texts of political philosophy. However, even if that holds true, the Republic still stands as one of the most basic examples of democracy and how it is applied. Just a few decades later when Aristotle wrote his first books, his collections of metaphysics and the many other contributions to science had been the building blocks of other studies even to the modern day. In many such areas like literature, physics, chemistry, and the many other disciplines of the modern world, it is through old texts that modern scholars look towards and reaffirm the believe that even the oldest of books hold much grain of truth compared to those which are new. In fact, on argument by most writers is that most of the books written today are merely copies or modifications of the old books of our society. They have merely been rephrased in order for us to understand better, but the same ideas and essence still remain. If this is not proof enough, one merely needs to look at authoritative leadership books as of the present and TrackBack their reference until one reaches the Bible. The second is the argument of content. Many scholars are in direct conflict with theologists because the latter group claims that the Bible had been written by some divine assistance. Academic scholars who values science more claim that it is only humans who had conceptualized and read the books of the Bible. if you were to discuss and reflect upon this debate, we would be biting more than we can chew, for this argument has existed as long as the Bible itself has existed. For our academic purpose, let us at the least reliant the fact that either way, it is not problematic for us on the source of the Bible as long as it is able to maintain the same basic truths that we consider essential to our review. Even if it’s true that it is not God who had written the Bible but a collection of imaginative man, since we are discussing the lessons of leadership that could be learned from the book, we are at a certain advantage because both theories could prove useful to us. If it is indeed written through divine inspiration acting through human tools, then perhaps we could authoritatively claim that the Bible’s leadership styles are indeed universal leadership styles that are not merely human but divine. On the other hand, having an argument that it is men who had written the contents, this our study could benefit from that idea because even in the early stages of our history, leadership signs had been detected in humanity in their heights of civilization, and these leadership styles and values still exist as of today. Having had qualified or major source, let us now proceed to our paper and identify the various leadership styles that could be found in the Bible.

Sexual Harrasment in School Essay Example

Sexual Harrasment in School Essay Example Sexual Harrasment in School Essay Sexual Harrasment in School Essay Effect of Sexual Harassment in School Schools are now more focused on physical bullying compare to Sexual Harassment. Sexual Harassment underestimated in some schools. James Gruber from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and Susan Fineran from the University of Southern Maine in the United States said that Schools current focus on bullying prevention may be masking the serious and underestimated health consequences of Sexual Harassment. They also did research and found that the Sexual Harassment has a large negative impact on the health of adolescents from physically bully. From the article sexual harassment give an impact to student. More than 48% of middle and high school students in United States (US) suffered sexual harassment both in person and online. 87% of those students said the experience had a negative impact on them. So, sexual harassment has an impact to student especially the victim. The negative impact that can be found from the article is sexually-harassed students that take part in the Association America University Women (AAUW) survey reported having trouble studying, not wanting to go to school, and feeling sick to their stomach. This statement shows that, student cannot focus in their learning process when they had been harassed by other student. This is bad impact to student and it may cause them fail in their examination. Student also might not come to school because they feel very shy and afraid to being harassed once again. So, they cannot enjoy their school life and cannot achieve their dreams. The effect on the morale of all students can also be serious. Both men and women in a school can find their studying disrupted by sexual harassment even if they are not directly involved. Sexual harassment can have a demoralizing effect on everyone within range of it, and it often negatively impacts school result on the whole. Some student stayed home from school, others skipped classes, drop after-school activities, took different routes to and from school, or changed school altogether. This is extrinsic impact to student because it affects their behavior. This behavior gives impact to their personal and academic life because sexual harassment affects their studying and personal activities. They also may loss their trust to the school. This is because school has give them negative memory. Many girl having faced this behavior said that they find a difficulty to trust or having friendship with boy or men. This situation will affect their task especially group task because they do not trust men. So, they will ignore the different gender among their group. So, the productivity of the group will decrease. Sexual harassment can give an impact on student’s health. Most of students who have been sexually harassed experience mental and physical problems. This is true whether they complain about it or keep quiet. The most common mental problem is lack of concentration. Other common symptom includes headache, nausea, sleeplessness, anorexia, overeating, and allergic reactions. Some potential effects a person who had been harassed may experience: 1. Anxiety, frustration, depression, nightmares, difficulty concentrating, headaches, fatigue, shame or guilt, feeling powerless, helpless or out of control, feeling angry towards harasser, loss of confidence and self-esteem, withdrawal and isolation, suicidal thought or attempts. 2. Retaliation from the harasser, or colleagues/friends of the harasser, should the victim complain or file a grievance. Retaliation can involve revenge along with more sexual harassment, and can involve stalking the complainant. 3. Having to drop course, or change academic plans. Sexual harassment may impact grade performance for students. 4. Increased absenteeism to avoid harassment, or because of the illness from the stress. 5. Having one’s personal life held up for public scrutiny. The victim becomes the accused, and their dress, lifestyle, and private life will often come under attack. 6. A student that being harassed also can be objectified and humiliated by scrutiny and gossip. 7. Sexual harassment can make student becoming publicly sexualized. . Defamation of character and reputation of students. 9. Stress impacting relationship with others, sometimes resulting in the demise of the relationship. It also gives stress on peer relationships and relationships with colleagues. 10. Impact on reference/recommendation and loss of career. (from Woman Center Northwestern University) There’s a lot of negative impact of sexual harassment for students. School and teachers should know how to prevent and cure this problem. Sexual harassment gives negative impact of student learning process and development in school environment. Students also have their right to protect themselves.

Frictional Forces are Surface dependant Essay Example

Frictional Forces are Surface dependant Essay Example Frictional Forces are Surface dependant Essay Frictional Forces are Surface dependant Essay We were given a coursework question asking us to prove that Frictional Forces are Surface dependant. We were asked to prove this. I have therefore thought of several ways to do so; I thought of throwing different objects across different surfaces. I thought of using an elastic band to throw a block of wood, 4.5cm X 4.5cm x 4.5cm, across a certain surface with a certain length; 1.25 metres. I thought of making the surface as my independent variable and the block of wood as my dependant variable. I also thought of performing the above procedure but instead of using different types of surfaces, I thought I would use several types of blocks of different material, but all of the same weight. And using the rubber band, throw it across a surface of ceramic. : I have decided to merge the two ideas, and came up with the following idea and procedure; My idea was that I could use two 5cm x 5cm x 5cm blocks, one of wood, and the second of plastic foam. I intend to try them on several different types of surface; wood, ceramic, marble, carpet (with a certain thickness which I shall state later on), and glass. All of which are 1.00metres (100cm) in length. I intend to use the surfaces as my independent variables, and the blocks as my dependant variables. I intend to prove that the type of surface, makes a lot of difference in the velocity (speed) of the block, and that due to friction and the surface, the distance covered, and the time consumed change according to the type of surface, and whether it has a high frictional surface or a low frictional surface? My procedure: I thought that I would implement my idea so as to prove the relationship between the contact surface, and the frictional force. Firstly, I would like to refer to the information that I have gathered so as to enable me to place a procedure that is correct and which I guarantee that it will provide me with some reliable results. Friction is the property that objects have which makes them resist being moved across one another. If two objects are placed one on top of the other, the top object can be lifted without any resistance except that of gravity. But if one object is pushed or pulled along the surface of the other, there is a resistance caused by friction. Friction has many important uses; it makes the wheels of a locomotive grip the rails of the track. It allows a conveyor belt to turn on the pulleys without slipping. Without friction, we would not have been able to walk on the pavement; we would have kept on slipping! Thats why it is hard to walk on ice; it produces friction that is less than the pavement, and therefore causes us our shoes to slip. Friction also has disadvantages; it produces heat which causes objects to wear; have you ever looked at the soles of shoes which you have been wearing for 2 years, and the soles of brand new shoes? Observe the difference! Several layers of your shoes soles have worn away due to the friction of the shoes on the pavement, this is why lubricating oils are used to fill in the gaps between moving machinery parts. There are three main kinds of friction: Sliding or kinetic friction; this is produced when two surfaces slide across each other, like when a book moves across a table. There is also rolling friction, which is the resistance produced when a rolling body moves over a surface. E.g.: the friction between a car tyre and the street is rolling friction. Fluid Friction/ Viscosity are the third type of friction. It is the friction between moving fluids or between a fluid and a solid. Thinner fluids have less viscosity than thicker fluids, and usually flow faster. E.G: erosion of rocks in the rivers by running water. The law of friction: The basic law of friction states that the force needed to overcome friction is proportional to the total perpendicular force pressing one surface against the other. E.g.: when the weight of a box being pulled across the floor is doubled, the force pulling the box must be doubled. The ratio between the weight being pulled/pushed, and the force required is called the coefficient of friction. The value of the C.F depends on the type of surfaces moving against each other. Friction: Friction is the resistance that a moving object meets when it is in contact with another object. It is a force that converts a moving objects kinetic energy (energy of motion) into other forms of energy, such as heat and sound. This process slows the object down. Friction can be reduced for example, by lubricating the surfaces of the two objects in contact. Friction can be useful, too. It is the force that makes a cars brakes work. E.G.: When a match is struck, friction provides the heat that causes phosphorus in the match head to ignite. Coefficient of Friction: The coefficient of static friction is a measure of how much force must be applied to an object to overcome friction and set it moving across the surface of another object. It varies for different pairs of objects. The coefficient of kinetic friction describes how much force must be applied to overcome friction between the two objects once one of them is in motion. Theory Suppose you place a book on a rough desktop. The weight of the book produces an equal and opposite reaction force; R from the surface. The force you need to apply to make the book begin to slide is independent of its area of contact with the surface but is proportional to R. The force you need to apply is related to the weight of the book (equal to R) by the coefficient of static friction, symbol ?. If you try to push the book sideways with a force that is less than ?R, it is cancelled out by a corresponding frictional force, and the book does not move. As you increase the force, the frictional force increases too. The frictional force will continue to increase as a reaction to you pushing the book until it reaches ?R, which is the limit of static friction. If you increase the force beyond this limit, the book starts to move across the surface. The value of the coefficient ? is determined by the two adjacent surfaces and is not a strict constant. Its value varies from about 0.15 to 0.6 for most dry and fairly smooth surfaces. It depends only on the nature of the two bodies, and not (as might be supposed) on the area of contact between them. In other words, if you have two equally heavy books made from an identical material, you need to push just as hard to make them move, even if one book is large and thin (has a large cover) and the other is small and fat (has a small cover). Once an object is moving steadily across a surface, its movement is opposed by a kinetic friction force. This force has a value lower than the limiting force of static friction, meaning that a greater force is needed to start an object than to keep it moving. This is described by a coefficient of kinetic friction, which is always less than the coefficient of static friction for two objects. Formula Force needed to overcome friction (Fmax) = coefficient of static friction (?) à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ force keeping body at rest (R). Since both forces are measured in Newton (N), the coefficient of static friction is simply a number with no units. Example A car of mass 1,000?kg has broken down on a road made of asphalt. If the driver has lost the keys and the brakes are locked on, what force is needed to push the car? The coefficient of static friction between rubber and asphalt is 0.60, and the acceleration due to gravity, g, can be taken to be 10?m?s?2. Solution The car resists any attempt to move it due to its weight, which is equal to its mass multiplied by the gravitational acceleration g. R = m à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ g = 1,000 à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ 10 = 10,000?N Fmax?=à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½?R Fmax?=?0.60?à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½?10,000?N = 6,000?N A force of 6,000?newtons (N) is needed to push the car. Therefore, with reference to the information stated above, I have planned the following procedure and equipment: Apparatus: * 1 Block of wood with measurements 4.5cm X 4.5cm X 4.5cm (volume= 4.5cm3). (dependant Variable) * 1 Block of plastic foam, 4.5cm X 4.5cm X 4.5cm (volume = 4.5cm3). (dependant Variable) * 1.00metres of: ceramic, carpet (2mm thickness), carpet (7mm thickness), marble, wood, and glass. (independent Variables) * Stopwatch. * Tape-measure. * Elastic band (which reaches a length of 85cm when stretched). * Cello-tape. * Scissors. * A marker pen. * An electronic weighing scale. Procedure: 1. I will measure the sides of the cube to ensure that it is exactly 5cm3. 2. I will then measure 100 cm of each surface, and stick the cello-tape across the length of each. 3. Using the marker pen, I will place a mark on the tape every 10cms. 4. Next, I will measure a distance of 5cm (equal to the size of the cube) from one end of the surface, and also on the side opposite to it; 5cms extra to the 100 of the surface, 15 extra on the right hand sides, and 5cm extra on the left hand side. This is the space I will place the cube in before catapulting it across the surface. 5. I will then measure the width of the tape, and stick the exact amount of the rubber band underneath it, one side of the rubber band at a distance of 10cms apart. 6. Then, using the rubber band that has been stuck to the surface, I will place the wooden block in between the rubber band, and pull the rubber band back (with the cube) to a distance of 15cm. (the 15cm I have added previously). 7. I will hold the stop watch in one hand, while holding the stretched rubber band and the wooden block in the other hand. As soon as I let go of the rubber band, I will start the stopwatch. 8. I will observe the block fly across the surface, and I will have my finger on the stop button in the watch, and thats to stop it once the block reaches the end of the surface, or if it stops in the middle of the surface. In which case I will take a reading of the distance covered and not down the time in my table. 9. I will repeat this experiment 3 times, and thats to guarantee the reliability of my results, and also to graph the average of my results which should be more accurate than just one trial. 10. I shall repeat the above procedure for the different types of surfaces and for the different cubes. * I intend to take some safety measures; I will place an extra piece of tape on top of the tape already holding the rubber-band in place, and that is to ensure that it will not fling out of place. I also intend to place two 1metre rulers on either side of the practical area, and thats to prevent the block of wood from flying off course. I also have several other rubber bands of the same thickness and length of the rubber band being used (from the same box), and thats in case the rubber band used breaks. I have also placed a piece of tape on the surface; marking the end of the 100 cm, and that is to enable me to see exactly when the block has passed the 100 cm, enabling me to stop the stop-watch in the right time, resulting in some reliable results. My theory: I believe that my plan shall be quite good and that it shall enable me to obtain sufficient results which are reliable. My theory is that the rougher the surface, the higher the friction, and consequently, the more time is consumed for the block to reach the markers. While the smoother the surface, the less the friction, and consequently, the less time is consumed. My Prediction: I predict that the marble shall prove a very good surface close to ice which will enable the block to shoot across it like a bullet fired from a gun, this is because the marble surface is quite smooth, and also quite slippery, which indicates a low level of frequency. Yet, I predict that the 7mm thick carpet and the wooden surface shall prove to have very high friction, and thus, the block shall not be able to cover the complete distance of 1.00metres on that surface, especially with the force applied. This is of course with reference to the data stated above. I have placed this plan according to a test we have previously observed regarding friction, as we have studied in class friction and its effect. This gave me the idea that I need an equal amount of force to push the block each time; and if I was to apply this force by hand, how could I guarantee that the force applied each time is equal? The test has to be fair! So I decided to follow the above procedure, using a rubber band which is stretched to a certain extent (15cm), this will guarantee that the force applied each time is equal. I have also thought of extending the length of the surfaces used to 2.0 meters, but after my preliminary test, I found that 1.00 metres are sufficient, and that they will enable me to prove my theory and prediction. I have modified my original version which I have followed in my preliminary test, and thats to guarantee the reliability of my results. MY PRELIMINARY TEST: I should have placed this test earlier, but I was unlucky enough to be unable to find a good place for it, so I thought that the best place for it would be here; at the end of my planning, and that is to link it with my observations and Obtaining. For my preliminary testing, I decided to try out a procedure which would enable me to obtain some reliable results; after deciding upon the investigation I intended to perform, I decided to use a rubber band to apply equivalent forces each time in my original investigation. I also decided to try out my preliminary using a block of wood with a volume of 4.5cm3. I decided to try my preliminary on ceramic as it was the easiest to start with; so I placed two 1 metre rulers at a distance of 10cm apart. I placed them both with their 0 ends towards my side, and the 100cm marker at the other end. I then stuck the two ends of the rubber band (25cm in length) one side at either ruler. I placed a piece of tape at the end of the surface, linking the two 100cm marks together and showing me the end of the 1 metre distance. I then measured out 15 cm from the 0cm markings, and placed a piece of tape in between the two rulers. I then placed a block of wood with volume 5cm3 in between the two arms of the rubber band, and pulled it with the rubber band to the extent of 15cm (until the marking), I then let them go, and the block of wood was catapulted towards the other end (towards the 1metre marking). I took a record of the time consumed, and found that it covered 60 cm and stopped. That took it a time of 0:32 sec. Therefore, according to this preliminary, I have decided upon using a distance of 1.0 metres; since the smoothest surface with the least friction (in my opinion) did not allow the block of wood to cover more than 60cm, I do not expect any of the other surfaces to provide a force which will be less than the force applied by the rubber-band. I have therefore drawn up the procedure stated above; this is because I believe it to be the best procedure I could follow, and implement the steps within. That is of course with reference to the safety measures I have taken, and also because I am familiar with most of the equipment, and could therefore tackle their side effects. I also hope that this procedure will enable me to gain the best results possible. The source of my idea: We have previously performed a semi-coursework which consisted of the following: we were required to prove that an object accelerates as it descends and gets closer to the ground due to the gravitational pull upon it. To do this, we were given a measuring cylinder full of 1liter of motor oil. We placed 10 markers which were equidistant (5cm3). We then dropped 10 ball bearings; one at a time. Each time, we started the stop watch as the ball started to descend, and stopped the watch at the next marker each time. E.g.: the first ball, the stop watch was stopped at the first marker. The second ball at the second marker, the third at the third markeretc. we then obtained the ball bearings by the aid of a powerful magnet, and repeated the investigation. We then averaged the time and graphed our results. Before performing the original investigation, I decided to perform a preliminary test which I have stated the results and consequences of previously. I then intended to perform the investigation, implementing the procedure I have drawn up for myself. I then found out that this procedure would not provide me with a fair test. So I decided to alter my plan slightly; instead of timing how long it took for the block to stop, I could count how long it took for the block to pass each marker (10cm). I would therefore have to decrease the amount of surfaces I intend to use to two (2). This is because I intend to make it a fair test, and also; to save me some time. Therefore, I will catapult the block 10 times, note down the time it took to reach each marker in turn. I started off by getting the tools and materials required and placing them in a small, neat pile on my work bench. In doing so, I found that the surfaces were not portable (mobile), and I would therefore have to go to each surface wherever it is. First of all, I started by cutting up 230cm of Cello-tape (aided by the 1meter ruler) and then splitting that into two equal pieces (strips); each strip with a length of 115cm. using the marker pen, I placed a mark on the tape every 10cm, (the 0 mark starts after 15cm); I intend to use only two surfaces; ceramic ; wood. This is to spare me some time to perform repeats and to compare the results using the two blocks. I will perform the experiment with the two blocks as stated in my primary plan. All that has changed is the method of recording time; instead of recording the time each block took to completely stop on each surface, I will measure the time taken for it each time to cover the distance between the markers; e.g.: in the first catapult, I shall stop the watch when the block passes the first marker indicating (10cm). In the second catapult, I will stop the watch when the block passes the 2nd marker, indicating 20cm, and so on, similar to my source of idea and procedure. I also found that the process was too time consuming, and I therefore decided to perform the investigation with only one block, the block of wood. After marking every 10cm on the tape, I decided to start with the ceramic surface, so I went to the ceramic surface and placed one of the two strips of tape along the length of one side of it. I then measured a distance of 20cm from the tape, and stuck down the second strip of tape; the two tapes are parallel with a distance of 10cm in between them. I then cut the rubber band from one side, which gave me a long strip of rubber. At the 0cm mark, I stuck one arm of the rubber; I then stuck the other arm at the opposite 0cm mark (one arm at each tape). I then placed the wooden block in the rubber bands Lap; between the two arms, and pulled them (the rubber band and the block). As soon as I let go, I pressed the start button on the watch. I then stopped the watch once the block had passed the 1st mark. I then repeated the procedure, but this time stopped the stop-watch as soon as the block passed the second marker. I kept on doing this, each time stopping the stopwatch at the next marker . After finishing doing so, I did my repeats, repeating this process all over again 3 times until I had got three readings for each marker. I then repeated the whole process, but this time, I did it with the wooden surface; I took the marked tape I had used in the previous experiment, did my measurements, and stuck everything down as I had done in the previous surface; marble. I then repeated the process as I have done in the previous surfaces. I have included below a table containing my results, and a full report regarding what actually happened: Surface: Marble WOOD Dist. Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Average Time v =s/t Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Average Time v =s/t (Sec.) (Sec.) (Sec.) (Sec.) V (Sec.) (Sec.) (Sec.) (Sec.) V 10 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.2 50 0.2 0.24 0.22 0.22 45 20 0.29 0.28 0.31 0.29 69 0.34 0.35 0.29 0.32 63 30 0.4 0.42 0.39 0.4 75 0.38 0.41 0.4 0.396 76 40 0.51 0.5 0.53 0.52 77 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.51 78.4 50 0.72 0.68 0.71 0.7 71 0.72 0.65 0.68 0.68 73.5 60 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.88 68 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.89 67.4 70 0.96 1.05 1.1 1.04 65 STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED 80 STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED 90 STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED 100 STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED After observing the results I have obtained and placed in the above table, and with reference to my notes and annotations which I have produced during the investigation, I found that the block of wood, would only reach a certain distance, that is of course due to the thrust (force applied), but as I have followed my initial plan step by step, altering only what I have stated previously, I could not alter anything else or make any extra modifications. I was therefore stuck with the rubber band I had started with. As is noticeable; in the first table which is for the marble, the block stopped at the marker indicating 70cm, and did not proceed. While in the second table which is for the wooden surface, the block reached the mark which indicated 60cm, and did not proceed. This I shall analyse in the following section and state the reasons for. Unfortunately, this investigation was not easy; this is mainly because not every time I let go of the rubber band did the block reach the required mark, and before stating that the block stopped, I did and re-did the experiment to ensure that the block could not indeed reach that level (mark). Sometimes I would also let go of the rubber band before starting the stop-watch. I have therefore tried my best to obtain and use the most reliable results possible. I have followed my procedure step by step, and I have also used the equipment I am most familiar with, and thats to enable me to cope with and provide the best results attainable by the aid of this equipment. I hope that these results are sufficient, and that they will enable me to prove my theory and prediction. After performing my investigational experiments, and identifying the most obvious of the information and mistakes, I intend to proceed to analyzing my results, procedure and implementation of it. Below are the graphs that I have drawn up based upon the average times, and the markings. By analysing the above graph which is the graph for the Marble surface; we can notice at a glance that there is what resembles a straight line. With reference to my physics knowledge, I know that a straight line starting from the 0, and extending at an angle of approximately 46o, indicates uniform acceleration. We also know that a line graph which starts somewhere along the Y-axis, and extends diagonally towards the X-axis resembles uniform retardation. Looking at this graph, it resembles uniform acceleration, but as it is not a V-t graph, it actually resembles uniform retardation. We gather this logically because more time is consumed by the cube, and thats for it to reach the following point. If we look at it scientifically; we could observe that the Y-axis is a time scale, and the higher up we go the more time is consumed 9on the graph), and the X-axis resembles the checkpoints or marker-points , and as we go further eastwards, we cover a greater distance, and by covering greater di stances, force wears away, and as we have started with a pushing force that unbalanced the opposing force, as the force wears off; is consumed, the forces start to balance, until the force completely wears off, and the opposing force has little resistance and is greater than the pushing force, which causes it (the block of wood) to eventually stop, leading it to a state of uniform velocity where acceleration equals Zero. This therefore causes the time consumed to increase. This is because though the acceleration has stopped and returned to a uniform state in which it equals Zero; time is still ticking away, and consequently, more time is consumed! I then studied the above graph for some time, and found that it was exactly the same as the first one. It resembles the trend of uniform acceleration in a V-T graph, but since these graphs are not V-T, and are Distance X time, the observation is different. The graph resembles a straight line, curving towards the end which indicates that the block is slowing down. This proves my theory, yet it also shows us that the speed /acceleration of the block are decreasing, which means that the opposing force seems to balance the pushing force, eventually overpowering it, causing it to slow down until it eventually stops, reaching a state of uniform velocity which is equal to zero. After analyzing the results, I found that there was a slight stability in the results obtained in the repeats. I have also noticed that the recorded times for the blocks passage by each marker or checkpoint each time. There seems to be a pattern in the graph as the results when linked with each other, provide a straight line which is quite rare to obtain. Closer analysis showed that the first graph which was for the blocks sliding across a marble surface had a line which was straight all the way to the end, while the second graph which was for the sliding of the wooden block along a wooden surface starts off straight, but towards the end, curves upwards slightly. This incline indicates a sudden change in the balancing of the forces. And since the incline is upwards, this suggests that the pushing force has been out-powered by the opposing force. I believe the situation to be so because the upwards incline suggests the increase in time consumption, which indicates that the pushing force which started off quite powerful and slightly stronger than the opposing force, enabling it to reach this point. But the force has been worn off in the long journey, and eventually, the acceleration of the block starts to decrease which indicates retardation. This retardation results in a weakening of force, which causes the pushing force to weaken, con sequently, it is over-powered by the resisting/opposing force. This proves my theory as I have theoretically stated that: The rougher the surface, the higher the friction, and consequently, the more time is consumed for the block to reach the markers. While the smoother the surface, the less the friction, and consequently, the less time is consumed. With reference to my results, we can see that on the marble surface, the block of wood reached the 70cm marker, that is, with the force that was applied. While the block of wood did not exceed the 60cmmarker on the wooden surface. This suggests that there was a greater opposing force provided by the wooden surface than that which was provided by the Marble surface. Closer studying to the surface enabled me to gather that the marble surface was indeed slightly smoother than the wooden surface. Scientifically, I would say this because the marble is one smooth surface, but the wood consists of fibres (I saw this using a magnifying glass), which cause the block to, slow down. I also thought of looking at the base of the block (I have been catapulting it on the same side), I found it was slightly darker than the other faces (of the cube) and that there were some splinters of wood sticking out of it which were not there when I started. This shows that there was indeed friction and that there certainly was some heat produced. Also, the block was made of the same kind of wood as that of the surface, which could be the cause of the great friction. Its like when we push our two hands upon each other, and try to slide one of them, its quite hard! You will eventually succeed, but by that time, you will have exerted a lot of energy, and anyway, you are applying more force every second by your muscles, and thats to complete the task. But place your two hands the same two hands!) On an icy surface; they will slide pretty easily, and you will probably find a hard time trying to stop them. This is exactly the case, the wooden block is pulled tightly towards the wooden surface by gravity, and as the two surfaces are from the same material, they will stop after a short time. This is because they are of the same material, they are pulled close together by gravity, and the force applied is not renewed. While when we placed the block of wood on the marble surface, we succeeded in making it reach a farther marker than on the wood. This is mainly because the marble surface is quite smooth, (it resembles ice in a way), and has no fragments sticking out f it (splinters), this makes a pretty slippery surface for the block of wood. I have stated previously that gravity plays an important role in this investigation; I have stated that the pull of gravity on the surface and block, cause them to stick close to each other, which plays an important role as this increases the friction, and consequently affects the terminal velocity (speed) of the block. We also know that the mass (size/weight) of the block determines the size of the gravitational pull on the block. We also know that acceleration = Force X Mass. I have therefore decided to weigh the block using an automatic scale, and found that it weighed: 50grams. I have also referred to the following Formula: F1F2 Then movement is present in the direction of F1. F1=F2, Then there is no motion/movement. In this formula, F1 indicates the force applied, the pushing force, while F2 indicates the opposing force. The above graphs are both for the velocity of the block of wood on both of the surfaces. To find the velocity, I had to refer to a formula which linked the speed with the distance and the time; Velocity = Distance / time. With reference to this formula, I managed to calculate the velocity of the block of wood on each of the surfaces. By observing the first graph, which is for the marble surface, we notice that the curve is slightly off-line, which indicates a problem with the investigation. But overall, it represents a curved line which starts at a low speed, and gradually the velocity increases, reaching its maximum as 78cm at the 4th marker (40). It then starts to slow down, but gradually. Unfortunately, I could not apply any greater pushing force on the cube so as to gain more results by it reaching the 100cm marker, because it would then have been an unfair test. We therefore notice that the graph (line) does not extend to the Zero line, which it should have done theoretically. We then observe the second (or in this case the 4th) graph, which is for the velocity of the wooden block on the wooden surface. We notice that the line (curve) is somewhat smoother than the other. If we looked at it more closely, we notice that the left side of the curve is a straight line directly from the zero, (indicated by red dotted line). The line reaches its maximum at 80cm at the 4th marker (40). This means that both the surfaces do not have any dramatic effect upon the block of wood until the 4th marker. This is of course with the exception of the maximum velocity of both surfaces which depends upon the material itself. Looking past the 4th marker, we notice that the 1st graph (3rd) starts to go off-line slightly which could be an anomaly, or could be due to one of the problems I intend to identify in my evaluation. But then, the line goes off at a straight line at an angle of approximately 195o. That is of course with reference to the theory that the line shall stay straight until it reaches the 0 line, which indicates a non-velocity state. This means that the line would probably have had to reach a 200 marker. But of course, there seems to be an anomaly as the line is not 100%straight. On the 2nd graph (4th), we notice that the line, after the 4th marker, seems to incline downwards, towards the 0 line on the X-axis, though, it is slightly steeper than the first graph, as it seems to be inclining at an angle of approx. 200o. This indicates that the marble surface is a less frictional surface in comparison with the wooden surface. I have gathered this because the line of the wooden block after the 4th marker is steeper than the line for the marble surface which is after the 4th marker. This mean that if we were to observe the graphs theoretically, we would find that the line for the marble surface would cover a greater distance, approx. 200cm (2.00m), while the steepness of the line for the wooden surface indicates that it would touch the zero line (X-axis) sooner than the line for the marble surface, I believe that the line for the wooden block will cover approx. a distance of 150cm (1.5m). With reference to the above information, I gather that the wooden block shall cover a greater distance on the marble surface than on the wooden surface, provided that the force applied is sufficient enough to enable the block of wood to cover the distance assigned. This is of course due to the high friction of the wooden surface which exceeds the frictional force of thee marble surface noticeably. With respect to the above statements, there is one contradiction; the maximum speed covered by the block on the wooden surface exceeds the maximum speed covered by the same block on the marble surface. That is by several centimetres (the unit of measuring velocity in this assignment). I have tried to find a scientific explanation for this phenomenon which outlaws any of the conclusions I have reached, but I was unsuccessful. We therefore conclude that the block of wood moved more smoothly on the marble surface. This proves my theory which stated that; the rougher the surface, the higher the friction, and consequently, the more time is consumed for the block to reach the markers. While the smoother the surface, the less the friction, and consequently, the less time is consumed. I therefore gathered that the Rougher the surface, the more the opposing force, and consequently, the more friction and heat are produced. Yet, the smoother the surface, the less the opposing force, and the less the friction and heat resulted. This also proves my prediction which was based on the information I had gathered previously and which stated: I predict that the marble shall prove a very good surface close to ice which will enable the block to shoot across it like a bullet fired from a gun, this is because the marble surface is quite smooth, and also quite slippery, which indicates a low level of frequency. Yet, I predict t hat the 7mm thick carpet and the wooden surface shall prove to have very high friction, and thus, the block shall not be able to cover the complete distance of 1.00metres on that surface, especially with the force applied. This is of course with reference to the data stated above. We also gather that friction is the property that objects have which makes them resist being moved across one another. If two objects are placed one on top of the other, the top object can be lifted without any resistance except that of gravity. But if one object is pushed or pulled along the surface of the other, there is a resistance caused by friction. With reference to the information I have gathered; the value of the C.F depends on The type of surfaces moving against each other. This relates to what I have stated previously regarding the type of surface, and for which I have provided an example using the hands. I have concluded the above after referring to detailed scientific information and also after closely analysing the results and evidence I have obtained. I therefore believe that I have done what was asked of me and that I have performed the task I was assigned and have succeeded in proving my theory, prediction and procedure to be accurate, correct, and reliable. Also by referring to the second graph which is for the wooden surface; we notice that the straight line curves towards the end (upwards), which suggests a sudden change in the balancing of the pushing and the opposing forces. Scientifically, this suggests retardation, and the curve indicates that the block suddenly started to lose the force applied to it. It started off with uniform retardation, and then suddenly started to stop several seconds faster than when it had started. This means that the wooden surface is slightly rougher than the marble surface, and that it provides friction that is slightly more (higher) than that provided by the marble surface. I believe that this is what I was asked to prove. Below is a diagram showing the forces available in this investigation: I have performed this investigation to a good standard, and believe that the results I have obtained are good enough and are sufficient as they have enabled me to prove my theory, prediction and procedure. They have also enabled me to prove what was asked of me. I wish to annotate the procedure I have followed because though I have performed it to a good standard, there are still some flaws in it and I still believe that it could be performed at a standard that would be better, well, no body is perfect. After finishing my investigations, I found that the block was slightly darker than when I started, this indicates that the surface may well not have been clean. This indicates that there were dust particles available on the surface, and as dust particles are sharp (when observed under the microscope) and have rough edges, it is therefore believed that they would cause a big difference in my results as their rough surfaces interfere with my investigation. I believe this because as the wood block is sliding across the surface, I am investigating the effect that the surface itself has on the terminal velocity of the block. With the presence of sharp-edged dust particles in the middle (between the surface and the wooden block), more friction and heat are acquired through the dust particles, which slow down the block moderately. Therefore, if I was to perform this investigation once again, I intend to guarantee the cleanliness of the surface I am working on. Another thing was the presence of wooden splinters small, but seen, on both the wooden surface, and the side of the block I was working on. These splinters most certainly would have interfered with my investigation and results. I believe this because the splinters would be between the surface and the block, causing more friction, and therefore slowing down the block, thus affecting the acceleration of this block, and giving me inaccurate results. The next time, I intend to ensure that the surface lack any external effects which might alter my investigation, for the worst. Something else was that the marble was not just one straight block which would have been quite suitable for this particular investigation. In fact, it was a working bench, and it was made up of several tiles. (The tiles had a smooth surface without any drawing or grooves on). The small cracks between each tile might well have affected the velocity of the block; causing it to slow down before reaching the desired marker. This would have given me some false results and would have caused the time consumed to be several seconds more than what it actually should have been. If I was to perform this investigation another time, I would try my best to use one whole tile of marble instead of several tiles, and this should provide me with some results which are more reliable. I was using my naked eye to stop the watch once the block passed the marker, so I could possibly have stopped the watch before the block actually passed the marker, or I could have started the watch several tierces (1 hundredth of a second) after letting go of the rubber band, which means that the timing was not 100% accurate. If I was to perform this investigation again; I would use one of the following: A) Light gates, B) Interrupt Card, C) Or a ticker timer. Any of the above methods would provide me with some reliable results which would be more accurate than the results I have obtained. By observing Graph A; the graph for the marble surface, the result for the 40cm marker is slightly of the line, but as I said previously this could well be due to the dust particles which were on the surface, or could also be due to the splinters available on the faces of the wooden block. It could also be due to my method of timing, either way, if I was to perform the investigation another time, by altering the errors I have identified previously, I look forward to some results which are anomaly-free, and that also contain no errors. By observing Graph B; the graph for the wooden surface, we notice that the straight line curves towards the end, which suggests a sudden change in the balancing of the pushing and the opposing forces. Scientifically, this suggests retardation, and the curve indicates that the block suddenly started to lose the force applied to it. It started off with uniform retardation, and then suddenly started to stop several seconds faster than when it had started. This means that the wooden surface is slightly rougher than the marble surface, and that it provides friction that is slightly more (higher) than that provided by the marble surface. I believe that this is what I was asked to prove. We also notice that there is a semi-anomaly; the result fir the 30cm is slightly out of line, it is slightly lower than where it should be, this could be due to one of the external factors that I have stated previously, or it could be due to some other factor that I have been unable to identify using the tools available to us. I have tried my best to identify the factors which could have affected my investigation and consequently, my results. That is of course with the equipment provided to us. If there are any other factors which I have failed to identify, that would be because of the tools provided to us. Though, I doubt that there are any other factors that could be identified using other apparatus. Overall, I believe that I have performed this investigation to a good standard, and that I have succeeded in proving my theory and prediction. I also believe that I have done what was asked of me, and proved that frictional forces are surface dependant. I have proved it with reference to my knowledge, to external, advanced information, and also with reference to my investigation. Though I have performed this investigation to a fairly good standard, I believe that it could be better and that by performing this investigation again after altering the errors I have stated above, I would be able to provide sufficient evidence and proof which is undoubted and accurate by 99%. I say this because no matter how hard I try, the equipment provided to us are not that advanced, and therefore, there will always be better methods with results which are more accurate than what I have obtained. I have therefore performed this investigation as best as I could, and hope that the results and information I have gathered are sufficient.

An Introduction To Encryption And Decryption

An Introduction To Encryption And Decryption CHAPTER 1 This thesis proposes a VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) design of Encryption and Decryption Algorithm for Data. In this chapter, the challenges of cryptography is firstly presented. This chapter also briefly discusses the problem definition, scope of work and the thesis objectives are also highlighted.Finally, the chapter end with the chapter organization. The dissertation presentation is provided at the end 1.1 An introduction to Encryption and Decryption, a type of cryptography Encryption and Decryption, a type of cryptography, refers to the process of scrambling information so that the observer cannot be detecting the data. Cryptographic key is a piece of data used to encrypt or decrypt to plaintext. (Alex Brennen V., 2004) The Crypto, from the word cryptographic mean is it has its origins in the Greek word KRUOTOS, which means hidden. Thus the objective of cryptography is to hide information so that only the intended recipient can read it.[2] . Cryptographic is a protocol or method of performing encryption and decryption (Alex Brennen V., 2004). There are two types of cryptographic: symmetric and asymmetric key. Figure 1.1 is example a symmetric cryptographic has a single key, which is used for both encrypting and decrypting information. Data Encryption and Decryption is a well-known example of symmetric cryptographic. In symmetric cryptographic, public-key cryptographic uses complementary pair of keys to divided the process of encryption and decryption. This process is shown in Figure 1.2. This part is discuss about the symmetric-key cryptographic only.[3]. The proposed projects is to create the algorithms where it is use to convert of information, rearranging the original massage produce output referred as ciphertext Plaintext Plaintext Ciphertext Key Figure 1.1: Symmetric Cryptographic Plaintext Plaintext Ciphertext Encryption Key and Decryption Key Figure 1.2: Public-Key Cryptographic 1.2 Problem Statement At present there are many encryption and decryption, especially in the communication system provided in a variety of application. Encryption and decryption is particularly impacted in the field of military communications and reliable security data to protection for transmitting. This ciphertext is used in the military is to send information such as direction, strategy, secret codes and other information that can not be know by the national foe during the war.[4] Creating this system is the process by which information can not be detect by the national foe. The information can not be recognizing by the national foe because this system is using the process to encrypt data and decrypt data. [4] 1.3 Scopes of Work Based on available software resources, limited time frame and expertise, this research project is narrowed down to the following scope of work: 1. The project is only to design fixed 64-bit input of data block size, 64-bit output of data block size and 56-bit of key size based on an Encryption and Decr yption algorithm . 2. The projects is limited to design, to synthesis, to simulate and to verify the design in Altera Quartus II software. Objective The project are to create a system that can protect electronic data (secret information) which Consist of encryption and decryption process and to fully design an encryption and decryption algorithm using VHDL. The objectives of this project are

Creativity and innovation at greenpeace Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Creativity and innovation at greenpeace - Essay Example While implementing any sustainable strategy, an organization has to closely analyze its resources and capabilities such as culture, diversity, human capital, innovation and creativity, as if they are durable, transferable and replicable or not. Creativity and innovation among organizations usually occurs through development and implementation of new mechanisms in a non-traditional way. Any organizational environment constitutes a social and a cultural aspect called the field and the domain respectively. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1999), â€Å"creativity occurs when a person makes a change in a domain, a change that will be transmitted through time†. Creativity is essentially a two way process in which people must interact with the field and the domain to achieve certain level of novel variation. The person with specific set of talents and experiences transmits the body of knowledge in context of the cultural system (domain). The social system (field) then evaluates innovat ion and retains the selected creativeness in context of the domain. For instance, there are people in the field of modern art who decide whether the new paintings deserve to be purchased, collected and added to the domain or not. Amabile (1998) suggests that â€Å"within every individual, creativity is a function of three components: expertise, creative-thinking skills, and motivation† illustrated in figure 01. In any organization, however, managers are fully capable of influencing these components via workplace practices and conditions. The intellectual, procedural and technical knowledge comprises the expertise. The novel and unique ways in which people approach certain issues come under the creative-thinking skills component, and the inner spirit and devotion required for tackling or solving a particular issue forms the motivation component. Factors such as challenge, freedom, resources, work-group features, supervisory encouragement, and organizational support affect crea tivity and can be analyzed to enhance creativity in organizations. It is important to note here that some systemic practices are existent which may also kill creativity. Figure 01: The Three Components of Creativity. Source: (Amabile, 1998) According to West and Farr (1990), innovation is â€Å"the intentional introduction and application within a job, work team or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures which are new to that job, work team or organization and which are designed to benefit the job, the work team or organization†. The process of innovation encompasses both the development of a concept and effective translation of that concept into practice. All organizations are capable of being innovative to certain extent depending on the sources of innovation and many of them consider creativity and innovation as part of their competitive strategies. If a change is beneficial, intentional and novel, it can be rightly regarded as innovation. Economic activit ies are mostly dependent on finite and limited set of natural resources present on earth. Overexploitation of these limited resources is continuously threatening the global economy, which at its core is embedded in the environment. Industries worldwide are depleting resources of the earth not taking into account the provision of relatively free ecosystem services. The changing patterns of resource scarcity have given rise to a new business model known as Natural Capitalism. According to Lovins et al. (1999), â€Å"