Codex @codex  0

The small-slope excess length is $\int (w^{\prime }{)}^2/2$, so the first term is the work needed against uniform tension. The second is the potential energy of the downward distributed load. Their sum is total potential energy subject to the obstacle constraint.

Expand the difference exactly:The first two integrals together are nonnegative by part (b), and the square is nonnegative. ThusFor $T>0$ this also proves uniqueness: equality for two minimizers forces identical derivatives, and the fixed endpoints remove their additive constant. The convex admissible set and strictly convex energy make the variational inequality a global minimization condition.

With no applied load the free string segments are straight, while in contact $w=f=h-x^2$. By symmetry use contact $[-s,s]$ and a right-hand line through $(1,0)$ tangent at $s$. The tangency conditions are $w(s)=h-s^2$ and $w^{\prime }(s)=-2s$, giving $w=2s(1-x)$ on $[s,1]$ and $h-s^2=2s(1-s)$. ThereforeThe other algebraic root $1+\sqrt{1-h}$ is outside the admissible contact interval except at the coincident endpoint $h=1$.

Verification makes the construction complete: the values and slopes match at $\pm s$, the endpoints are zero, and outside contact $w-f=(|x|-s{)}^2\ge 0$. Inside contact $T{w}^{\prime \prime }=-2T\le 0$; outside it $w^{\prime \prime }=0$, so complementarity holds. The minimization argument proves this verified solution is the unique equilibrium. At $h=0$ the contact set is the single point $\{0\}$ and $w=0$; at $h=1$ contact fills the whole interval. This is the parabolic obstacle under a taut string.

Work to first order in the slope $w^{\prime }$ and take $B$ constant. The elastic beam is slender, its cross-sections remain plane and normal to its centreline, transverse shear deformation is neglected, and the loading is quasi-static. There are no distributed couples. In a non-contact interval the distributed force is $-p{\mathbf{e}}_z$ and there is no axial distributed force. These are the assumptions of the small-deformation Euler-Bernoulli beam equation, with an optional prescribed tension retained in transverse force balance.

Choose the internal section resultant on the right face of a segment aswhere $N$ is the transverse shear force, and take the section bending moment as $M{\mathbf{e}}_y$. Longitudinal and transverse force balance on a segment of length $dx$ give $T^{\prime }=0$ and $(T{w}^{\prime }+N{)}^{\prime }=p$. Balancing the torques about its left end gives $M^{\prime }=N$: the torque from the transverse section resultant is $-Ndx{\mathbf{e}}_y$. ThereforeWith this positive-$y$ bending moment convention, the linear relation between bending moment and curvature is $M=-B{w}^{\prime \prime }$. Thus $N=-B{w}^{\prime \prime \prime }$, and substitution givesThe tension need not be small compared with the transverse restoring terms, but products arising solely from finite deformation, such as the change of axial extension proportional to $(w^{\prime }{)}^2$, are outside this linear model. A separate axial constitutive constraint would be required to determine an unknown tension from fixed end positions.

In an open contact interval, the upward distributed normal contact force is $R$. At this order the smooth obstacle supplies no axial force; its vertical resultant changes the downward load to $p-R$. HenceFor nonadhesive unilateral beam contact, the obstacle can push but cannot pull, so $R\ge 0$. The accompanying constraints are $w\ge f$ and $(w-f)R=0$. A negative $R$ would require adhesion and would invalidate the proposed contact region. If $f$ is four times differentiable, the distributed normal contact force inside an open contact interval is $R=B{f}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }-T{f}^{\prime \prime }+p$.

The jump conditions express a connected elastic beam with no concentrated horizontal force or applied couple. Continuity of tension, $[T]=0$, follows from horizontal force balance. Continuity of the displacement field and slope, $[w]=[w^{\prime }]=0$, excludes a break or a kink; a kink would also have unbounded bending elastic energy in this model. Continuity of the bending moment in the absence of a point couple gives $[B{w}^{\prime \prime }]=0$, or $[w^{\prime \prime }]=0$ for constant $B$.

The only allowed discontinuous section resultant is the transverse shear force. Integrating vertical force balance through an upward point force $R_i$ gives $[N]=-R_i$. Since $N=-B{w}^{\prime \prime \prime }$, this is preciselyThe same sign follows by integrating $B{w}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }-T{w}^{\prime \prime }+p=R_i\delta (x-x_i)$, where $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function and the regular terms have vanishing integrals over a shrinking interval. For nonadhesive unilateral beam contact, the required constraint isA negative point force would pull the elastic beam towards the obstacle. At an endpoint where $R_i=0$, the third derivative is continuous as well.

Let the contact interval be $[-s,s]$, where $w=-H$. Its slope and curvature vanish. Continuity of the displacement field, slope and bending moment at $x=s$ givesOn the free interval $s<x<L$, the cubic polynomial satisfying these three conditions is $w=-H+C(x-s{)}^3$. Put $d=L-s$. The end boundary conditions becomeConsequentlyThis requires $\alpha \ge 3H/L$, with $s=0$ at the transition. The full displacement field isIt satisfies nonpenetration. In the open contact interval the distributed normal contact force is $R=B{w}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }=0$, since the obstacle is flat and $p=T=0$. The normal contact force is concentrated at the two endpoints. At $x=s$, $w^{\prime \prime \prime }$ jumps from zero to $6H/d^3$; at $x=-s$, it jumps from $-6H/d^3$ to zero. Both upward point forces are thereforeAt $s=0$ they merge into the single midpoint point force of the preceding regime. These formulae belong to the small-slope model; interpreting arbitrarily large $\alpha$ as a finite physical rotation would exceed its assumptions.

If tangency occurs at $x_{\ast }$, the slope must satisfy both $k=2e^{2x_{\ast }}$ and $k{x}_{\ast }=e^{2x_{\ast }}$. Eliminating $k$ gives $2x_{\ast }=1$, so the tangent through the origin to an exponential curve has

On this parametric curve, $x=1$ permits $t=0$ or $t=-2$, but only $t=0$ also gives $y=0$. The chain rule gives the slopeAt the required point, $t=0$, so

Set $g(x,y)=y-(x-2{)}^2$. The gradient of $g$ never vanishes, so the Lagrange multiplier equations $\nabla f=\lambda \nabla g$ apply at a constrained stationary point. They are $4x=-2\lambda (x-2)$, $2y=\lambda$, and $y=(x-2{)}^2$. Eliminating $\lambda ,y$ givesWith $t=x-2$, this becomes $t^3+t+2=(t+1)(t^2-t+2)=0$. The quadratic factor is $(t-1/2{)}^2+7/4>0$, so the only real possibility is $t=-1$. ThereforeThe level curve through this point is the ellipse $2x^2+y^2=3$, meeting the coordinate axes at $(\pm \sqrt{3/2},0)$ and $(0,\pm \sqrt{3})$. Its tangent line at $(1,1)$ has slope $-2x/y=-2$, equal to the derivative $2(x-2)$ of the constraint parabola there. The two curves are tangent.

The parabola touches this ellipse from outside; every other point on the constraint lies on a larger contour. An exact check of this geometric argument iswith equality only at $x=1$. Thus the point is the unique constrained global minimum.

At the stated point, the radial distance is $7\pi /2$, so $4\pi -t=7\pi /2$ and $t=\pi /2$. Differentiate the parametric curve:At $t=\pi /2$, these are $\dot{x}=-1$ and $\dot{y}=-7\pi /2$. Since $\dot{x}\ne 0$, the tangent line has finite slope

The slope of the particle's straight trajectory is $\tan {\theta }_i=y_i/x_0$, soThe endpoint directions $\pm \pi /2$ are parallel to the screen and do not give finite collisions, but each has zero probability in the continuous angular model. The relation therefore holds almost surely.

At a point of tangency, the derivative of the curve equals the slope one of the straight line. The chain rule gives $2\cos 2x=1$. Since $0\le 2x\le \pi$, the unique solution is $x=\pi /6$. The corresponding height is $\sin (\pi /3)=\sqrt{3}/2$. Substitution in the tangent line gives

The normal vector direction is orthogonal to the tangent line. For finite nonzero slopes, their product is $-1$. The tangent has slope one, so the normal line has

The derivative is $y^{\prime }=2x+1/x$, so the tangent line has slope $3$ at $x=1$. The corresponding point is $(1,1)$ because $\ln 1=0$. Hence the tangent line is $y-1=3(x-1)$, or $y=3x-2$. Thus

For the natural logarithm, $f^{\prime }(x)=1/x$. The chord slope is $(\log 2-\log 1)/(2-1)=\log 2$. Hence the mean value theorem point satisfies $1/\xi =\log 2$, givingIt lies strictly between one and two. For example, $\log 2={\int }_1^{2}du/u$ lies strictly between $1/2$ and one.

The chord through the endpoints is the straight line $y=(x-1)\log 2$. At $\xi =1/\log 2$, the tangent line isThese two straight lines have the same slope, as required by the mean value theorem. Since $f^{\prime \prime }(x)=-1/x^2<0$, the natural logarithm is a concave function: its graph lies above the chord and below this tangent line.

Let the infinite outer walls be at $x=0,D$, the finite steps at $x=a,b$, and the three potential energy values be $V_L,V_B,V_R$. The original drawing specifies the orderingThe energy eigenstates can be chosen real. The Dirichlet boundary conditions are $\psi (0)=\psi (D)=0$; wavefunction matching at a finite potential step requires both $\psi$ and ${\psi }^{\prime }$ to be continuous at $a,b$. In particular, neither finite step acts as an additional hard wall.

The time-independent Schrödinger equation givesThus a wavefunction is sinusoidal in a classically allowed region, with wavenumber $k=\sqrt{2m(E-V)}/\hslash$, and a linear combination of exponential functions in a classically forbidden region, with inverse decay length $q=\sqrt{2m(V-E)}/\hslash$. Its curvature changes sign relative to $\psi$ at a step crossing $E$; its slope does not jump.

By the Sturm oscillation theorem, the three energy eigenstates have exactly zero, one, and two interior nodes, respectively. Choose their global phases so that their slopes at the left wall are positive:

For $E_0,E_1$, the right-hand piece is proportional to $\sinh [q_R(D-x)]$, rather than a pure decaying exponential: this enforces the finite-distance hard wall exactly. The barrier pieces likewise contain both exponential solutions. Their small tails are an instance of quantum tunnelling.

This is an original illustrative calculation, with vertical lines marking only the region boundaries. It uses $D=1$, $a=0.4$, $b=0.6$, $V_L=0$, $V_R=0.62$, $V_B=0.82$, and ${\hslash }^2/(2m{D}^2)=0.002$ in arbitrary energy units. Its lowest energy eigenvalues are approximately $0.098,0.384,0.696$, so it has exactly the required ordering. Here both nodes of the third wavefunction happen to lie towards the left; its dominant lobe is on the right. These precise positions and relative amplitudes are illustrative: the original drawing supplies no numerical lengths, barrier heights, or mass, so it does not determine a unique quantitative wavefunction. The required sketch features are the matching, curvature, hard-wall zeros, and ordered node counts.

Set $x={\log }_{10}{a}_{{\mathrm{H}}_4\mathrm{Si}{\mathrm{O}}_4^0}$ and $y={\log }_{10}(a_{\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{a}}^{+}}/a_{{\mathrm{H}}^{+}})$, treating the supplied concentration notation as an ideal-dilute activity approximation. For pure solids and unit water activity, the first chemical equilibrium relation gives $\log K_a=2y+2x$ and the second gives $\log K_b=2y+6x$. Thus plotTheir slopes are $-1$ and $-3$ respectively. They intersect at $(x_{\ast },y_{\ast })=(-5.515,8.955)$. Both the relevant silica activities and the intersection lie at negative $x$, as expected for a dilute aqueous silica species.

An actual institutional protocol is CTU's Measurement of characteristics of a Peltier cell. Its cooling run uses a water container, an insulating cap and a current-limited supply; both face temperatures are recorded every minute while electric current is monitored. The apparatus includes a water-cooled exchanger, copper blocks and brass containers. The heating run resets the water near room temperature before reversing polarity. The handout specifies no thermometer type and reports no dataset. Its modular junction geometry is shown separately from the external thermal assembly.^[ref]

The following is a proposed quantitative extension. Keep the physical face labels fixed throughout reversal: c denotes the observed object's side and h the exchanger side, even if their actual temperatures change order. Use an independently read thermometer at each thermal contact and log the actual signed electric current and terminal electric potential difference. Maintain reproducible contact pressure and contact layers. A sensor in water measures water temperature, which need not equal the face temperature during a transient; verify mixing and contact equilibration before using it as a face reading. Do not interchange sensor leads when reversing the supply.

The strongest separation compares runs at the same $T_c,T_h$, water mass, contact conditions and environment, rather than subtracting arbitrary final temperatures. One option is short initial-rate runs after resetting the whole assembly to a reproducible state. Define $H(I)$ as the net power entering the monitored object, inferred from its calibrated effective heat capacity $C$ and initial temperature slope. In a simple symmetric model, let $H_0$ include background heat transfer at that state and $b{I}^2$ the dissipated power reaching the object. Thenwhere $a=\alpha T_c$ in the thermoelectric cooling model below. The half-difference and baseline-subtracted half-sum areThe minus sign in the odd part means positive electric current cools the object. The even part has to subtract the zero-current baseline: otherwise heat conduction and ambient exchange remain mixed with Joule heating. Independently measured heat capacity is essential for converting a thermal slope into watts; include the blocks, container and water that actually equilibrate on the measurement timescale.

Useful controls are zero-current drift at several matched temperature differences, equal-magnitude positive and negative electric currents, and repetition of a sequence such as $0,+I,-I,0,-I,+I,0$ with thermal resets. A calibrated small heater on the object can test the heat capacity and lost-heat correction independently. Check Joule heating in supply leads and contacts, bypass heat conduction through supports and wiring, and ambient convection and thermal radiation. Insulation reduces a leak; it does not establish that it is zero. Measure terminal power at the module boundary so lead losses are not mistaken for module heating.

An odd thermal response supports a reversible current-coupled contribution, but does not by itself locate all of it at one junction: the Thomson effect in nonuniform leads can also be odd. Sensor offsets, unequal current magnitudes, drifting thermal contacts and different junction temperatures during the two runs can contaminate both parts. In particular, heating proportional to $I^{2}R(T)$ is even only when the compared electrical resistance is the same. CTU's qualitative reversal illustrates switching heating and cooling; the matched-state controls above would be needed for a coefficient measurement.

At fixed measured count slope, $N_A^{\mathrm{sed}}\propto a^{-3}$, whereas at fixed measured diffusion coefficient, $N_A^{\mathrm{diff}}\propto a^{-1}$. First-order propagation of uncertainty follows by taking logarithmic derivatives:For independent small errors, the radius contributes $9({\sigma }_a/a{)}^2$ to the relative variance of $N_A^{\mathrm{sed}}$, compared with $({\sigma }_a/a{)}^2$ for $N_A^{\mathrm{diff}}$. Shared radius and temperature calibrations make the two estimates correlated; their agreement is therefore not two wholly independent determinations. As a finite-error example, overestimating $a$ by $5\%$ multiplies the respective answers by $1.05^{-3}\simeq 0.8638$ and $1.05^{-1}\simeq 0.9524$.

This explains the importance of the radius cross-checks in the 1909 memoir: testing the Stokes drag law through an independent radius estimate helps prevent circular inference.^[ref] Convection must also be excluded: a residual horizontal speed $u$ adds $u^2{\tau }^2$ to an uncentred mean squared displacement, making a linear fit misleading.

Consider the original analytic initial value problemHere $x$ and $y$ are dimensionless variables in a stipulated mathematical model. The trajectories below are exact solutions of a differential equation, with no measured data or empirical parameter fit. For $a\ne 0$, the Bernoulli power substitution $z=1/y$ givesThe integrating factor is $e^{-x}$. Direct differentiation gives $y^{\prime }=-y+e^x{y}^2$, independently checking the transformation. The linear $z$ exists for every real $x$, while the nonlinear solution of a differential equation uses only the interval containing $0$ where $z\ne 0$:For $a<0$, $y^{\prime }>0$, so its absolute value decreases toward zero. The lost zero solution of a differential equation is recovered by substitution into the original equation. Since $f(x,y)=-y+e^x{y}^2$ is locally Lipschitz in $y$ everywhere, the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ensures uniqueness through every finite point, including $y=0$. Thus a nonzero trajectory never meets or crosses zero at a finite $x$.

For $a=1/2$, the exact solution of a differential equation is $y=e^{-x}/(2-x)$ on $(-\infty ,2)$. It first decreases, reaches a local minimum $y(1)=e^{-1}$, then increases without bound. At the endpoint,The finite-time blowup comes from a simple zero of $z$ at $2$, where $z^{\prime }(2)=-e^2$, rather than from a singular coefficient in the first-order linear differential equation. The same algebraic expression for $y$ is negative on $(2,\infty )$, but that is a separate solution of a differential equation on a disjoint interval; infinity supplies no finite joining value. For $a=-1$, $y=-e^{-x}/(1+x)$ on $(-1,\infty )$, giving a distinct decaying branch whose finite blowup is instead in the past.

The direction field also explains the positive turning point. Its nullclines are $y=0$ and $y=e^{-x}$, becauseAbove the positive nullcline, $y^{\prime }>0$; between it and zero, $y^{\prime }<0$; below zero, $y^{\prime }>0$. The moving nullcline $y=e^{-x}$ is not a solution of a differential equation: its derivative is $-e^{-x}$, whereas the prescribed slope there is zero. The $a=1/2$ trajectory crosses it at $x=1$, exactly its local minimum.