Life is beautiful

Waimea bay with Sela

rockabye baby -TOOL

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

See more at www.youtube.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/byug0

Northern Lights hit 100-year low point: Finnish researchers

Northern Lights hit 100-year low point: Finnish researchers: "The Northern Lights have petered out during the second half of this decade, becoming rarer than at any other time in more than a century, the Finnish Meteorological Institute said Tuesday."

jones act -alexander baldwin

Special Projects

Phone: 454-4774; FAX: (808) 454-4776; E-Mail: CLEAR; or to return to CLEAR's Home Page

The Jones Act:
What Does it Cost Hawai'i?

by Lawrence W. Boyd, Ph. D.
Labor Economist

Does the Jones Act cost every Hawai'i household three thousand dollars? This is the number typically cited by the news media and those who oppose the Jones Act. The Jones Act refers to a series of laws enacted in the 1920s which among other things require that American owned ships transport goods between American ports. These laws, called cabotage laws, have been enacted by forty-five countries. Opponents of the law in the United States range from conservative free marketers to groups representing foreign shipping interests.
The theoretical reasoning behind the opposition to the Jones Act is that it is a restraint of free trade between nations. Free trade makes possible the development of a truly international division of labor which in turn allows countries to specialize in doing what they do best. Countries can have a "comparative advantage" in the production of certain goods and services. By specializing in the production of those goods which can be produced best in a given country and trading for those goods it is not so good at producing individual country's economies can generate far higher incomes and living standards than if those countries did not trade. Because the Jones Act restricts trade between points within the United States opponents argue that it is a restriction of free trade and is equivalent to a tariff on goods and services Hawai'i brings in from the mainland. (A tariff is a tax levied on imported goods).
Those who defend the Jones Act argue that it is the only way that United State's environmental, labor and other laws can be enforced within American waters. These laws range from restrictions on trash dumping to ship designs which limit oil spills to minimum wage laws. Second that there are national security reasons for maintaining a domestic merchant marine capable of transporting military cargo during national emergencies. They also argue that the costs of the Jones Act compared to the benefits are not high.

The question of how much the Jones Act costs is central to the argument of both opponents and proponents of the Jones Act. Below I analyze the claims of those in Hawai'i who oppose the Jones act.

Three-thousand Dollars per Household?
Those who oppose the Jones Act, such as the Hawai'i Shippers Council, have distributed the table I have reproduced below. (This is taken from a packet handed out at Legislative hearings and by State Senator Whitney Anderson). I have condensed some of the description in order to save space.

Table 1: Anti-Jones Act Costing of Economic Effects


Differential between existing freight rates and the world price-estimated
Common Carrier/Liner Segment
30% differential on total freights of $650 million $201.5
Non-liner/Tramp Cargo Segments
50% differential on total freights of $100 million $50.0
Subtotal: Estimated Freight Penalty (in millions) $251.5
Economic multiplier for ocean freight** x 2.5
Subtotal (in millions) $628.75
Annual Lost Economic Activity-Estimate in millions $371.25
Total Estimated Costs (in millions) $1,000.00

**Annual Multiplied Economic Burden-Estimated
The estimated direct, indirect and induced effects as computed by Hawai'i State's economic multiplier for ocean freight.

The total estimate of one billion is then divided by the numbers of households to arrive at a cost for the Jones Act of three-thousand dollars per household. This number is inflated since it assumes 333,333 Hawaiian households rather than the actual number of 420,748 in 1995 as the divisor.
While one could dispute the numbers concerning the 30% to 50% price differential on freight rates and lost economic activity, this is not the problem with the table above. One cannot use the Hawai'i State's economic multiplier for ocean freight to estimate "the direct, indirect and induced effects" of the Jones Act. In fact the Hawai'i State multiplier can be used to estimate the impact of the Jones Act, but it is in precisely the opposite manner used in the table above. Rather than adding the number from the economic multiplier it should have been subtracted from the total.

How to Correctly Estimate the Overall Effect of the Jones Act
Impact analysis, which is what the state's input-output model is typically used for, "measures the change in output (production), employment, and income in all industries of the econnomy as a consequence of a change in the final demand of a particular industry" (1987 Input-Output Tables for Hawai'i State, November 4, 1994, p. 19). Jones Act opponents mistakenly use this when they multiply the "freight penalty" above by 2.5. The number represents the reduction in final demand throughout the State. For example the $251.1 million dollars saved by consumers of shipping must be subtracted from ocean freight in Hawai'i. It basically disappears from the economy, and the Hawaiian shipping industry. The Hawai'i State input-output model is set up to provide an estimate of what happens when there is a net increase or outflow of revenue from a particular industry such as ocean freight. Thus the $251.1 should be multiplied by the 2.5 multiplier but the $628.75 million dollars represents the income lost to the state as a result of abolition of the Jones Act from all industries.
Where does the $251.5 million go? Because this represents money which shippers would have paid but no longer pay it will be pocketed by consumers of ocean transport. Some of this savings will go directly to consumers like service personnel who ship cars and household items when they move to Hawai'i. The bulk however probably would go to firms who use ocean shipping to transport goods for resale in Hawai'i. If we could indeed use the input-output tables to reallocate revenue from one industry to another, then the final gain, would be the addition of the $371.5 million listed in the table above. This means the net estimated loss to the Hawaiian economy from abolition of the Jones Act would be $257 million in output. Table 2 below summarizes these findings.

Table 2: Corrected Estimate of the Impact of Repeal of the Jones Act

Gain to Consumers of Ocean Shipping (millions of dollars) $251.1
Multiplier x1.47
Total $371.25
Direct Loss to Ocean Shipping $251.1
Multiplier x2.5
Total $628.5
Gain $371.25
Loss -$628.5
Total -257.25

Why are these results so different? Often when highly charged debates take place you occasionally see "dueling experts" for both sides who provide different results because they are paid or committed to one side or the other. This is not the case here. This research is a spin off of a larger research project where I am trying to determine the degree to which competition exists in the Hawaiian shipping trade. Neither the Center for Labor Education and Research nor myself have received any financial support for this effort. What has happened here is the opponents have triple counted. First they did not subtract the loss to the ocean shipping industry, second they multiplied the loss by the state's multiplier and added that to the total, third they added the gains from the reduction in freight charges to the previous totals. This is not a disagreement over numbers, it represents an incorrect use by Jones act opponents of the State's Input-Output Economic Model.

Some Further Considerations
I have not been able to confirm the actual numbers used by opponents of the Jones in evaluating its effect. They seem to be related to a report by the International Trade Commission (ITC) released in 1991 which had a low estimate of the economic impact of the Jones Act on the U. S. economy of approximately $4 billion and a high of almost $10 billion. These estimates were revised by the ITC in 1993 to "approximately $3.1 billion" and in 1995 to "2.8" billion." The numbers above appear to be high numbers which would in turn effect the overall loss or gain to the Hawaiian economy.
Second, the ITC used a much more appropriate theory in evaluating the impact of the Jones Act and this has come across in garbled form when used here in Hawai'i by Jones Act opponents. If the Jones Act restricts competition, it leads to higher prices for ocean shipping. Because there are some consumers who are willing to pay this higher price a reduction will increase their welfare. Using the $251.1 million number above one can say this is the amount by which their welfare will increase through the repeal of the Jones Act. Per household this works out to a cost of $596.44 (when using correct number of households as denominator) not $3,000. It should also be noted that the 30 and 50 percent shipping cost differential seems to be an unreasonably high estimate.
Finally in terms of the losses to the Hawaiian economy the above estimate is probably an underestimate. I have assumed that there will be no further loss beyond the $250 million dollars to foreign carriers. This is not a very reasonable assumption. For example Sealand and Matson could register their ships in a foreign country in order to avoid the loss of business. This means they would not have to comply with labor and environmental regulations. It would also mean a further gross reduction in terms of the economic loss to Hawai'i. Or we could assume that the remaining shipping will be taken over by foreign carriers. The shipping revenue after the Jones Act Repeal would be about $500 million. If 20 percent were taken over by foreign carriers ($100 million) then the gross loss would be an additional $250 million in output. If it all went to foreign carriers the gross loss would be $1.5 billion in output.

In summary, using Jones Act opponents' numbers, there would be a net loss of $257.25 million to $1.5 billion in output per year in Hawai'i, or a loss ranging from $611 to to $3,563 per household if the Jones Act were repealed. The number of jobs lost in ocean shipping ranges from a low of 5,675 to a high of 17,025. This compares with a total loss of jobs in the Hawaiian economy of approximately 13,000 since 1991. The loss in personal income would range from a low of $157,750,000 to a high of $473,250,000.

In conclusion, the Jones Act opponents are simply misusing the State's input-output tables. Though I have used their own numbers in this analysis, they too appear suspect. For example, they appear to use an incorrect number of households in order to arrive at the $3,000 per household number. None of the material put out by the Jones Act opponents details job loss, as I have done above. And they appear to be confused when it comes to defining "economic activity." Economic activity can mean output by various industries, and this appears to be what they mean when they use a multiplier of 2.5. But output does not translate directly into income. There is a different multiplier for that. Thus the per capita income lost from repeal of the Jones Act would range from -$37.50 per household to -$1,124 as results from a decline in the ocean shipping industry.



For more information on this project, call, write or E-Mail Dr. Lawrence W. Boyd, Jr. at:

CLEAR
University of Hawai'i - West O'ahu
96-043 Ala 'Ike, Bldg. 400
Pearl City, HI 96782-3366
phone: (808) 454-4774;
FAX: (808) 454-4776
E-Mail: lboyd@hawaii.edu

Back to Home Page

Syriac alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Syriac alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free first page

Free first page

Application Number:

05/273084

Publication Date:

04/23/1974

Filing Date:

07/19/1972

View Patent Images:

Download PDF 3806758 PDF help

Export Citation:

Click for automatic bibliography generation

Assignee:

Hughes Aircraft Company (Culver City, CA)

Primary Class:

315/382

International Classes:

H03K4/04; H03K4/00; H01J29/70

Field of Search:

315/27GD,27TD,27R,31R,3R

Primary Examiner:

Wilbur, Maynard R.

Assistant Examiner:

Potenza J. M.

Attorney, Agent or Firm:

Macallister Jr. I, Himes Robert Konzem Fay W. H. H.

Claims:

What is claimed is 1. In a dynamic focusing generator for generating a dynamic focusing signal for a cathode ray type tube having a deflection signal, said generator comprising means responsive to said deflection signal for providing first and second inverted deflection signals, said second inverted deflection signal having a selected peak amplitude corresponding to maximum deflection; a field effect transistor having source, gate and drain connections, said gate connection being responsive to said first inverted deflection signal for producing a non-inverted output signal at said drain connection thereof having a peak amplitude corresponding to maximum deflection substantially equal in magnitude to said selected peak amplitude; means connected to said source connection of said field effect transistor for maintaining said source connection at a fixed direct-current potential level; and means responsive to said second inverted deflection signal and said non-inverted output signal appearing at said drain connection of said field effect transistor for combining said signals thereby to produce a composite signal equal to the difference thereof thereby to provide said dynamic focusing signal corresponding to said deflection signal for said cathode ray type tube. 2. A dynamic focusing generator for a cathode ray type tube having X and Y deflection signals, said generator comprising first and second amplifiers responsive to said X and Y deflection signals, respectively, for providing inverted X and Y deflection signals of first and second selected amplitudes corresponding to maximum X and Y deflection, respectively, and additional inverted X and Y deflection signals; first and second field effect transistors each having a source, a gate and a drain connection, said gate connections of said first and second field effect transistors being responsive to said additional inverted X and Y deflection signals, respectively; means for adjusting the peak amplitudes of the output signals from said first and second field effect transistors to be substantially equal to said first and second selected amplitudes when at maximum X and Y deflections, respectively; and means responsive to said inverted X and Y deflection signals and said output signals from said first and second field effect transistors for producing a composite signal equal to the difference thereof thereby to provide a dynamic focusing signal for said cathode ray type tube. 3. The dynamic focusing generator for a cathode ray type tube having X and Y deflection signals as defined in claim 2 wherein said first selected amplitude is equal to said second selected amplitude. 4. The dynamic focusing generator for a cathode ray type tube having X and Y deflection signals as defined in claim 2 additionally including means connected to said source connections of said first and second field effect transistors for maintaining said source connections at a fixed direct-current potential level.

Description:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION One contemporary form of dynamic focusing apparatus implemented a straight-forward integration of the ramp function voltages used for deflection signals. This apparatus is only applicable to systems having fixed raster deflection rates and is not applicable in the general case where random or variable deflection is used such as in the case of graphics writing. The general case requires a true DC coupled squaring-adding device. Early approaches implemented the squaring-adding function by the brute force method of shaping the deflection sawtooth with a biased diode array. This diode array required, in addition to amplitude and symmetry controls, bias adjustments for each diode. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Implementation of the dynamic focus generator of the present invention is achieved by exploiting the square law relationship between the drain current and the gate-to-source voltage of a field effect transistor. The output signal of such a field effect transistor consists of the desired square of the input signal together with a component which is a linear function of the input signal. By adding an appropriate amount of the input signal to the output signal, the desired square function is obtained. Advantages of a dynamic focus generator of this type are that the various stages may be DC coupled with concomitant wide bandwidth making the device useful for random deflection. In addition, the dynamic focus generator of the invention has generally fewer components than contemporary systems along with greater temperature stability, since drift in the amplifying stage is essentially compensated for by drift in the field effect transistor stage. Lastly, the generator has sufficient tolerance to field effect transistor characteristic variations as to not require matching. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic circuit diagram of a preferred embodiment of the dynamic focus generator of the present invention; FIG. 2 shows voltage waveforms at various points in the apparatus of FIG. 1; and FIG. 3 illustrates the direct current bias points of the field effect transistors in the apparatus of FIG. 1. DESCRIPTION Referring to FIG. 1 of the drawings wherein like reference numerals designate like elements there is shown a schematic circuit diagram of the dynamic focus generator of the present invention. More particularly, the generator includes an X-deflection amplifier 10 adapted to receive X-deflection input signals from input terminals 11, 12 the latter of which is referenced to ground and a symmetrical Y-deflection amplifier 14 adapted to receive Y-deflection input signals from input terminals 15,16 the latter of which is also referenced to ground. A positive 25 volts is applied to a terminal 17 which is connected through a smoothing circuit 18 to input terminals 19,20 of amplifiers 10,14 respectively. Similarly, a negative 25 volts is applied to a terminal 21 which is connected through a smoothing circuit 22 to input terminals 23,24 of amplifiers 10,14, respectively. Amplifiers 10,14, provide low-level output terminals 25,26 and high-level output terminals 27,28. The term "high-level" is used to designate that the gain of the signals applied to base 33 of transistors 32 is greater at the "high-level" output terminals 27,28 than at the "low-level" output terminals 25,26. In the particular embodiment described, the gain at high-level output terminals 27,28 is approximately five times that at the low-level output terminals 25,26. Amplifier 10 includes a transistor 32 which may be of the type designated 2N2222 having a base 33 a collector 34 and an emitter 35. The base 33 of transistor 32 is connected to the adjustable contact 36 of a potentiometer 37 which is connected between X-deflection input terminals 11,12. Potentiometer 37 has a resistance of the order of 100 ohms. Next, resistors 38,39 are serially connected in the order named from terminal 19 to the collector 34 of transistor 32 and the emitter 35 thereof connected through a resistor 40 to the terminal 23. Resistors 38,39 and 40 have resistances of the order of 330, 2,200 and 3,000 ohms, respectively. Lastly, the junction between resistors 38,39 is connected through a resistor 41 to low-level output terminal 25; the collector 34 of transistor 32 is connected through a resistor 42 to high-level output terminal 27; and the emitter 35 is connected through a resistor 43 to ground. Resistors 41,42 and 43 have resistances of the order of 8,200, 6,800 and 220 ohms, respectively. The amplifier 14 is the same as the above-described amplifier 10. The resistance of resistor 43 is used to set the gain of amplifiers 10,14. In addition to the amplifiers 10,14, the dynamic focus generator includes field effect transistors 50,51 each of which has a gate 52, a source 53 and a drain 54. The field effect transistors may be of a type designated 2N4342. The sources 53 of field effect transistors 50,51 are connected to a common junction 55 which, in turn, is connected through a zener diode 56 to the output of smoothing circuit 18 and in parallel through a resistor 57 and a capacitor 58 to ground. The zener diode 56 may be of a type designated 1N823, the resistor 57 has a resistance of 4,700 ohms and the capacitor 58 has a capacitance of 0.1 microfarads. The gates 52 of field effect transistors 50,51 are connected to the low-level output terminals 25,26, respectively, of amplifiers 10,14 and the drains 54 are connected to a common junction 60 which, in turn, is connected to both high-level output terminals 27,28 of amplifiers 10,14. Common junction 60 is connected to ground through a diode 61 so that only positive voltage excursions can appear thereon and, in addition, is connected in series through a resistor 62 and a rheostat 63 to the output terminal of the smoothing circuit 22. The resistor 62 has a resistance of the order of 5,100 ohms and the rheostat 63 has a maximum direct current resistance of 5,000 ohms. The diode 61 is for circuit protection purposes and is not needed for the dynamic focusing function. In addition to the above, each gate 52 of field effect transistors 50,51 is connected serially through a resistor 65 and a rheostat 66 to ground. The resistors 65 have a resistance of the order of 39,000 ohms and the rheostats 66 a maximum resistance of the order of 50,000 ohms. The purpose of the rheostats 66 is to control symmetry as will hereinafter be explained. Lastly, a connection from common junction 60 to an output terminal 68 provides a dynamic focus output signal. The operation of the dynamic focus generator of the present invention is based upon the square law relationship between the drain current and the gate-to-source voltage of the field effect transistors 50,51. Namely: I _D = I _DSS (1 - V _GS /V _P ) ² (1) where I _D = drain current of field effect transistor 50 or 51 I _DSS = drain current with zero gate-source bias V _GS = gate-source bias V _P = pinch-off gate-source voltage Although the square law relationship is theoretical, most contemporary field effect transistors approximate it very closely. In any event, the error is insignificant in the present case. Expanding Equation (1) I _D = I _DSS /V _P ² (V _P ² - 2V _GS V _P + V _GS ² ) (2) since I _DSS and V _P are constants for a given field effect transistor, the output signal consists of the desired square of the input signal and a component which is a linear function of the input signal V _GS . By adding an appropriate portion of the input signal to the output signal, the desired function is obtained. Note that the dynamic focus generator is essentially symmetriacal in order to handle both X and Y deflection signals. Considering at first only the amplifier 10 and the associated field effect transistor 50 and assume a 1 volt peak-to-peak sawtooth input signal at terminals 11,12 designated as voltage characteristic 70, FIG. 2. Amplifier 10 provides two output signals, a smaller signal across the resistor 38 at terminal 25 designated as voltage characteristic 71, FIG. 2 and a larger signal across the resistors 38 and 39 at terminal 27 designated as voltage characteristic 72, FIG. 2. The larger signal actually appearing at the collector 34 of transistor 32 is approximately 10 times the amplitude of the input signal and is connected to terminal 27 through an approximate 2:1 voltage divider formed by resistor 42 and the serial combination of resistor 62 and rheostat 63. This approximately 5 volts peak-to-peak inverted sawtooth signal 72 is contributed to the output by this circuit. The smaller signal 71 is derived across resistor 38 which has a resistance of the order of 330 ohms and applied to the gate 52 of field effect transistor 50 through a biasing divider composed of resistors 41,65 and rheostat 66 with little loss of signal amplitude. As shown in FIG. 2, the signal 71 amplitude at gate 52 is approximately 1 volt peak-to-peak. The source 53 of field effect transistor 50 is at a stable DC potential by virtue of the fixed drop across zener diode 56, so the output signal designated as voltage characteristic 73, FIG. 2 is a function only of the gate signal 71 and its bias level as described in connection with FIG. 3. Referring to FIG. 3 there is shown the transfer characteristic 74 of field effect transistor 50 illustrating I _D versus V _GS where, as before I _D is the drain current, V _GS the gate-source bias, V _P the pinch-off gate-source voltage and V _PP the peak-to-peak signal at the input gate 52. The DC bias points such as, for example, 75,76 are selected by adjustment of the rheostat 66. The DC bias point 75 results in a higher amplitude signal 77 than the signal 78 which corresponds to DC bias point 76. DC bias points intermediate points 75,76 result in signal amplitudes intermediate those of signals 77,78. In the operation of the dynamic focus generator of the present invention, the signal 72, FIG. 2 contributed to the output of the device by amplifier 10 is added to the signal 73 developed at drain 54 of field effect transistor 50 to form the output signal 80. The function of diode 61 connected from the output junction to ground prevents negative excursions of the output signal when desired for circuit protection purposes. The system is initially adjusted by independently applying a ramp voltage 70 that extends for the entire X or Y deflection range. The amplitude of voltage characteristic 73 is then adjusted by means of rheostat 66 to make the output voltage characteristic 80 for the respective X and Y deflection signals symmetrical. This is achieved by making the peak output signal 73 of field effect transistors 50,50 substantially equal in magnitude to that of the peak of the high-level output signals 72 at terminals 27,28 as illustrated in FIG. 2. The rheostat 63 is adjusted to set the DC level of the output signal. As evident from FIG. 1 of the drawings, the Y-deflection side is identical to previously described X-deflection side and operates in the same manner with all of the output signals being summed at the output junction 60. Once the dynamic focus generator has been adjusted by independent application of appropriate ramp voltage signals 70 at the respective X-Deflection Input 11,12 and Y-Deflection Input 15,16, the generator responds with a focusing signal for any arbitrary deflection voltage at either input for any deflection. This is possible since the dynamic focusing signal is not the product of the charging or discharging of any capacitance. Lastly, since the individual functions follow the square law, the sum of the two X and Y functions represents the square of the hypotenuse of the individual X and Y deflections and hence represents the appropriate dynamic focusing signal for the combined X and Y deflection.