Fluorescent Lamp

 FLUORESCENT LAMP

An electric current is used to excite the gas molecules inside a lengthy, narrow glass tube coated with phosphorescent material to create a fluorescent lamp, also referred to as a fluorescent tube. The phosphorescent coating inside the tube emits visible light when the gas molecules are stimulated and release ultraviolet radiation as a result.

Contents:

 👉Construction

 👉Operation Principle

👉 Design Factors

 👉Connecting Diagram

👉 Optical Properties

 👉Application

Construction:-

⇛   It is a Low Pressure Mercury Vapour Gaseous Discharge Lamp in essence.

⇛  It consists of a glass tube with a configurable length and a typical diameter of 1.5" (T12), 1" (T8),         and 5/8" (T5) (0.38m to 1.52m)

⇛  It is equipped with two electrodes that are coated in emissive material for electrons (Oxide Coated         Tungsten Filament)

⇛  A very little amount of Argon is present in the tube at a pressure of 2.5 mm Hg, along with a few           drops of Mercury.

⇛  Fluorescent material, also called phosphor material, is placed on the inside of the tube.

⇛  It is connected to the starter, the power factor adjustment capacitor, and the ballast, also referred to as the choke (PFC)

Operation Principle:-

⋟ Electrodes are connected to a supply while switching (220 V)

⋟ High starting impulse voltage is provided by the starter and the choke (normally in the range of 1100      V)

⋟ When electrodes are heated, electrons are released.

⋟ They continue to collide with additional atoms, causing the gas to ionise as a result.

⋟ Under plasma state due to oscillations of electrons betweenground and upper energy levels, Electro Magnetic radiation takesplace continuously.

⋟ Ballast functions as a current limiter when in operation by generating a voltage drop that results in a lower voltage (almost 110 V) across the electrodes.

⋟ Capacitor can occasionally be used to increase pf.

Discharge of Mercury at Low Pressure:-

👉 Mercury's excitation level varies

👉Two resonance radiations at 253.7 nm and 185 nm are produced by electrical discharge in low               pressure mercury vapour, which normally converts most of its electrical discharge (63%) into UV-C       radiations.

👉3% of the energy is transformed into visible radiation, primarily at the wavelengths of 405 nm                (violet), 436 nm (blue), 546 nm (green), and 578 nm (green) (Yellow). The mixture's overall result          is a discharge of pale blue light, though obviously with very little effectiveness.

👉The remaining energy from the input is lost as heat radiations.

Fluorescence Principle :-

     Phosphor UV radiation is absorbed by a coating on the tube's interior wall. A portion of the energy        that is absorbed is reemitted as visible light. Fluorescence is the term for the phenomena. Heat is            emitted from the remainder.

  With a typical bulb, the overall UV to visible conversion efficiency is 40%. Hence, the total visible        energy is equal to 0.4*0.63+0.03 = 0.282, or almost 28%.

  .The colour output varies depending on the material (for instance, calcium tungstate produces blue,         zinc silicate produces green, and cadmium silicate produces yellow pink).

 Halo phosphorous or triphosphorous substance is used to produce white light. The latter has better          Lumen output and higher conversion efficiency, but it is more expensive.

Factors for Design

The efficiency of electrical energy's conversion to UV depends on:

⋟ Tube length or Discharge Arc Length (preferred shape is long tubular)

⋟  Inert Gas Used as Fill Gas (Argon, Krypton etc.)

⋟  Gas Fill Pressure

⋟ Mercury Vapour Pressure

⋟ Tube power loading (watts per square meter of discharge surface)

⋟ Tube Dimensions (Narrower the tube, more is the power loading and higher is the lamp voltage and        hence higher efficiency)

The efficiency of converting UV light to visible radiation varies on -

⋟ . The output of the lamp's emission spectrum

⋟  The quantum efficiency of the phosphor or phosphors employed. 

⋟  The phosphors or mixture of phosphors used.

Circuit Diagram

⋙ Choke (Ballast) is in series

⋙ Starter is in parallel with the lamp 

⋙ Initially Supply is applied across the starter 

⋙ Starter along with choke produces starting impulse - Hg Vapour ionised 

⋙ In running running Condition Condition starter starter becomes inactive

⋙ In running condition choke reduces voltage across lamp electrodes and thus limits the lamp current ⋙ Nowadays Electronic Ballast is used in place of Magnetic ballast due to its higher efficiency.

⋙The Control Gear Module will address choke and starter operation.

Fluorescent Lamp, Compact

#  Retrofit type is a good replacement for incandescent filament lamps since it fits in the same holder.       Integrated type has an electronic ballast built in, making retrofitting possible.

# The working process is similar to that of a low pressure mercury vapour fluorescent lamp. 

# . Non-Integrated - exterior magnetic or electronic ballast, retrofit is not possible.

# . Lumen o/p is proportional to the effective effective phosphor phosphor surface area. 

#  Typically in both cool and warm white and cool daylight range. 

#  CRI is good in the range of 80.

# . Luminous efficacy is in the range of 60 to 80 Lm/W.

# White LED has just taken the position of CFL.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN ILLUMINATION

 

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN ILLUMINATION

 LIGHT:

⇛ Light is a type of brilliant energy that movements in waves comprised of vibrating electric and attractive fields. These waves have both a recurrence and a length, the upsides of which separate light

from different types of energy on the Electromagnetic Range or Ether Range. Fig.1 shows the

ether range.

The Enlightening Designing Society characterizes light as "brilliant energy that is equipped for energizing

the retina and creating a visual sensation." Light, consequently, can't be independently portrayed in

terms of brilliant energy or of visual sensation yet is a mix of the two.

Light might be considered little heaps of waves Light might be considered little heaps of

waves produced in discrete parcels called photons.

Apparent LIGHT OR Noticeable Emanation:

Noticeable light is the electromagnetic radiation of a frequency to which eyes are delicate as can

be seen on the electromagnetic range, addresses a tight band between bright light

(UV) and infrared energy (heat). It is the radiation described by frequencies of around 0.38

µm to 0.78 µm. These light waves are fit for energizing the eye's retina, which results in a

visual sensation called sight.

          Fig 2 :- Visible Light Spectrum & Sensitivity

LUMINOUS FLUX (Φ):

The total quantity of light emitted per second by a light source is known as the Luminous Flux i.e. it is the time rate of flow of light. It is measured in lumen (lm). 

 Vienna Congress:

Content:-

1. Restructuring the European State System
2. Re-establishment of the pre-French Revolution dynasty
3. Protection of the interests of the victorious states

After Napoleon was deposed and exiled to the island of Elba, perhaps the most difficult and difficult task faced the victorious monarchs and diplomats of Europe. That task was the reconstruction of Europe. Because most of the countries of Europe suffered as a result of Napoleon's aggressive expansion policy. His downfall, of course, was a potential indicator of that reparation. The Treaty of Chaumont was important in the process of forming the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon. It was decided here that after defeating Napoleon, the signatory states, Russia, Prussia, Austria and England would remain united for at least 20 years to form and sustain the new state system, that is, the great powers took the commitment and responsibility of building a new Europe on the ruins of Napoleon's empire. Attached to this commitment were two other contractual obligations. The 'First Treaty of Paris' (May, 1814 AD) was signed after Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba and the 'Second Treaty of Paris' (November, 1915 AD) was signed after the Battle of Waterloo. The Vienna Conference or Congress of Vienna began with the task of implementing these three principles.

The Conference of Vienna lasted from September 1814 to June 1815, with temporary breaks. The break was caused by Napoleon's return to France from the island of Elba and his seizure of power. However, the leaders of the states assembled in Vienna, forgetting their quarrels, quickly took up arms against Napoleon, and by a combined effort succeeded in banishing Napoleon to the island of Saint Helena and finally within a hundred days. Then again they gathered in Vienna and finished the work of reconstruction.

The Vienna Conference began in an atmosphere of pomp and solemnity. Every European country except Turkey participated. Many dignitaries and diplomats were present among them .

A few notable figures from the revolution are Tsar Alexander I of Russia, Emperor Francis I and Prime Minister Prince Metternich, England's regent Duke of Wye and Foreign Minister Castlereagh, King of Prussia Frederick William Hardenburg (Hardenburg), French representative Talleyrand and others. But the four victorious powers, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England, were the true leaders of the conference. The role of Prince Metternich and France's Tellerand was particularly commendable. Like a magician. He is remembered in the history of politics for controlling diplomacy. Metternith was a brilliant and shrewd diplomat. He was proud of himself as "the winner of the winner". He could swim like a fish in the sparkling whrilpool of Vienna like a special fish that floats comfortably in the whirlpool. It is because of this wisdom that he is able to sit as the president of the conference. Talley, on the other hand, had a more complicated situation. He was the representative of defeated France, who had organized the conference to decide who was against France. His goal was to save France from this collective outrage. France also suffered under Napoleon's dictatorship. Today, after the fall of Napoleon and under the rule of the Bourbon dynasty, France should not be considered a war criminal, but should be given the same status as other countries. His words cannot be ignored by the European leaders. Among the victorious leaders, Tsar Alexander was second only to Metternich in the conference. The Moscow campaign failed. He was credited with destroying Napoleon's 'Grand Army' No. But this conflicting attraction to revolutionary liberalism and old-fashionedism left him in deep self-contradiction. He was, in Metternich's words, "a mad man to be humoured." Alexander took advantage of this vacillation and Metternich made him a follower of his decision.

According to Professor Hazen, "The congress of Vienna was one of the most impor diplomatic gatherings in the history of Europe, given the number, variety and importance of the issues presented before the Vienna conference." , by reason of number, vary gravity of the questions presented and settled."). The problems of the conference were multifaceted. Failed (1) the reconstruction of the new political system of Europe as Napoleon had formed it (2) the reconstruction of the new political system of Europe in which France had formed in the future (3) Ensured that France would not disturb the peace of Europe in the future (4) Signed alliances in the war against Napoleon, implemented various treaties (5) Determined the future of Poland, Saxony and Germany,(6) to determine the political future of the Rhine region, etc. Despite the united struggle against Napoleon, European countries were at odds over the choice of a new president. History of Modern Europe-Ketelby due to the difference in views and interests of the states.

Moral Progress: 

Their differences came up again and again in the conferences of 1815-1870. England and Russia aimed to expand beyond Europe. Austria and France, on the other hand, were mainly looking forward to expanding their respective powers within the European continent. Russia's greedy eyes were on the 'Grand Duchy of Warsaw'. With this part of Poland, Russia wanted to form a new Polish king under Ruszar. Prussia was eager to gain control of Saxony in exchange for part of Poland. Consensus was established between Russia and Prussia on this matter. But Austria was not willing to relinquish its rights over the Crown of Poland. England and Austria were alarmed by Russian reinforcements. These differences also raised the prospect of war between European nations at the start of the conference. In fact, buoyed by the news of this dissension, Napoleon returned from exile on the island of Elba and gained the courage to retake power. However, the European powers finally defeated Napoleon and imposed the Second Treaty of Paris on France. However, Telebrand's diplomatic ingenuity saved France from the ultimate humiliation. Talleyrand understood that the greatest danger to France was the rise of Russia and Prussia. So he was able to get Austria and Britain to sign a treaty with France (January, 1815 AD) which excited Austria and Britain. As a result, France was able to occupy the seat of prestige as one of the European powers in Vienna.

Proceedings of the Vienna Conference: At the time of meeting in Vienna, the European leaders spoke about the aims and ideals of this conference. He promised to implement the reconstruction of the European social system on the basis of justice and honesty, the revival of the ancient state system, the establishment of uninterrupted punishment, etc. In general, the leaders of Vienna are of three principles. Completed the reconstruction work on the basis. These are – (1) European Reconstruction and Compensation, (2) Legitimacy and (3) Balance of Power.

The countries fighting the war against Napoleon suffered in many ways. They are rewarded according to the compensation policy. Fragments are redistributed among different states according to their interests. (1) Russia gained most of Poland, Finland and Bessarabia in Turkey. This led to the expansion of the Russian Empire in Western Europe and increased the importance of Russia in European politics. (2) Belgium leaves Austria, Holland. Lombardy and Venetia gained in return. Besides, Tyrol, Salzburg etc. were acquired by Austria. Austria gets the presidency of the German Diet. (3) North of the Champni, Posen, Dern and Danzig join Prussia. Prussia also gained Western Pomerania and the territories on the left bank of the Rhine. This almost doubled the size of Prussia and strengthened the possibility of Prussian influence over Germany. (8) England played a major role in defeating Napoleon. England's colonial interests therefore assumed special importance in reparations. Malta, Mauritius, Heligoland, Tago Jeep, Sinhalese were ceded to England. British possessions were established in the Ionian Islands and some sub-regions of South America. In this way, England's colonial empire spread smoothly. (5) Norway from Denmark as punishment for siding with Napoleon Isolated and given to Sweden. As allies, Bavaria gained Beriduth, the Rhine Palatinate, and Unpack. Succession of dynasties in different states according to the principle of legitimacy

is done Louis XVIII of the Bourbons regained the throne of France. Bourbon rulers were also established in Spain and southern Italy. The Hapsburg dynasty of Austria was restored to its former glory. His Majesty the Pope regained his kingdom in Central Italy. However, opportunistic and independent policies were followed in the case of Italy and the states of Jama. Napoleon united the B states of Italy and brought them under one rule. Now it was broken again and Austria's supremacy was established over Italy. Victor Emmanuel gains Savoy, Piedmont and Genoa. The authority of Ferdinand of Bourbon was established in Sicily and Naples. Here Italy is once again reduced to a geographical definition. Germany was divided into 38 states (later increased by one to 39) and a 'loose confederation' was established. The president and vice-presidents of the Diet were Austria and Prussia respectively. Independence of the leaders of the United Nations in foreign affairs A is compressed.

The goal of the Equal Power Policy was to reorganize Europe in such a way that in the future no single country like France or a single individual like Napoleon could upset the European political status quo. For this purpose it was decided to keep the Allied troops stationed in the important fortresses of France for the next five years. 70 million francs damages were imposed on France. Countries bordering France were strengthened. For this reason, Holland was added to Luxembourg and Belgium. The Rhineland was given to Prussia. Genoa is with Sardinia. Switzerland formed a loose confederation and declared itself a perpetual "neutral country".

& Evaluation: Historians have expressed mixed opinions on the evaluation of the policies and activities announced at the Congress of Vienna. In the immediate judgment of the result it was 'a great deception and a betrayal.' Although the leaders spoke of high idealism like 'restructuring of social affairs, establishment of permanent peace on the basis of equal distribution of power' etc., they did not make any attempt to implement them. In fact, the Congress of Vienna was a conference of elites and statesmen who either disliked or disliked the ideals of nationalism and democracy. In the words of Professor Hazen: "The collective rulers reorganized Europe according to their will as their own possessions". "T rulers rearranged Europe according to their own desire, disposing of it were their own personal property. "). And in doing this they have consciously ignored the national sentiments of the people and remained indifferent to their wishes. Ketelby thinks that the directors of the Congress of Vienna rejected Yugadharma. In his words "The ignored the challenge of the French Revolution, he failed to realize the potential of the French Revolution era of change.

The Vienna Conference called for three principles to be followed. But not in practice Not fully followed. Sometimes one policy is followed by another speed: 1815-1870 policy is struck. As such the theory of fair rights was an important moral foundation of the convention. But due to giving more importance to the principle of balance of power, the theory of fair rights was violated in many cases. In countries like France, Rome, Sicily, etc., the just rights were applied, but in some cases, the leaders did not apply the just rights in the same situation. Napoleon abolished the Holy Roman Empire. This traditional empire was not re-established in Vienna. The republican governments of Genoa and Venice were not rehabilitated. The leaders of this context said, "Republic are out fashioned these days." That is, while the right of the monarchy was accepted, it was denied in the republic. They were also indifferent to the restoration of Poland. Historian Cartwell And Langned (Curtwell-Langned) called this policy the 'mean and hypocritical' behavior of the leaders of Vienna and wrote, "It was mean and hypocritical policy of the treaty makers not to extend the doctrine of legitimacy to Republics," the historian Hazen rightly said that, " "The doctrine of legitimacy appealed to for the restoration of dynasties were ignored in the case of republics”—Hazen.). Their aim was to protect and compensate the interests of the large states. Fair rights are not pursued as a universal principle. It was a tool of political expediency. Therefore, by the necessity of providing compensation to the states opposed to Napoleon, they violated the theory of "just right" ("The principal of legitimacy' was considerably compromised by the necessity of providing more or less arbitrary compensations."--Hayes) I

According to Professor Davies Thomson, "A network of bargains and negotiated compromises was a reflection of the self-interest of the great powers." ("Europe without there being any direct contact with France.")

For this reason he was attached to Holland, undermining the interests of Belgium. Interests of countries like Saxony, Poland etc. in Norway. Attempts to find a permanent solution to the German problem were made with Sweden. Abandonment was not in Norway, Finland, Pomerania, Vienna. In this case also the wishes of Austria and Prussia were fulfilled. Germany was placed under Austrian rule, forming a disorganized 'Confederation' of 38 (later 39) states in Germany at the will of the Meternith and South German states. Italy was also isolated and placed under a conservative monarchy in the interests of the Great Powers.

The Vienna decision was contrary to the transformation that the French Revolution had brought about in European thought. Viennese leaders rejected revolutionary democracy and nationalism. The sense of national unity felt by the people of Italy and Germany under the Napoleonic Empire was shattered by the Vienna system. The people who want freedom from the dictatorship are again handed over to the dictatorship. The national interests of Belgium, Poland, Finland etc. were also violated in Vienna. 

Neither Belgium nor Norway were ever independent states. Hence no fundamental change in their political position was brought about by the Vienna system. Only the lord-state had changed. If Belgium had not been annexed to Holland, it might have been attacked by France. The same applies to Germany. Before 1848 the idea of ​​national unity was purely 'air-dependent'. Historian Gordon Craig (Gordon Craig) said, "The directors of Vienna probably understood that giving freedom to the people of Italy or unifying Germany would only increase the chaos."

According to Bertrand Russell (B. Russel), "in terms of durability, the Vienna system is more successful than the Versailles system of 1919, because no previous decision of European states has lasted as long as Vienna." Thomson also admits that in 1815 the people of Europe earnestly desired punishment, and for at least the next four decades the Vienna System led the way. But the Vienna System signaled the future through the transfer and partition of several states. Strengthening Prussia paved the way for the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership within fifty years. Similarly, Vienna's decision to strengthen Piedmont created the possibility of Italian unification. The decision to end slavery is also indicative of the progressive and humane outlook of Vienna's leaders. Considering all the pros and cons of Vienna, historian Thomson rightly says, "On the whole, the Viennese system was a rational and statesmanlike decision" ("On the whole it (Vienna settlement) was a reasonable and statesman like arrangement.") 

 Metternich system:

Content:-

1. Maternik's interests
2. Expansion of the Austrian Empire
3. The perpetuation of the old order in European politics

He was the chief regulator of European politics between 1815 and 1848. Clement Von Metternich (Clement Von Metternich 1773-1859 A.D.) served as the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister (Chancellor) of Austria until AD. (1809-1848. Metternich's influence on European politics, including the Austrian Empire, the German Confederation, the Italian peninsula, was singular and final. The princes and administrators of Russia, Prussia, and even England were dear to Metternich's personality.

According to For this reason, this period is called the 'Age of Metternich' in Europe. And his political system is commonly known as Metternich System.

As a person, Metternith was of elegant taste, graceful and attractive. His knowledge about folk characters was deep. He could easily attract Anna's attention due to his attractive personality, eloquence and polite manners. He was familiar with the philosophical theories of Voltaire, the scientific theories of Newton, the literature of Shakespeare and the musical genius of Beethoven. He could easily grasp complex political issues. He therefore obtained the post of President of the Congress of Vienna and in a short time began to establish his authority. Metternich roamed freely in the diplomatic maelstrom of Vienna just as fish roam freely in swirling water. In Ketelbeer's words: "He could swim lie a fish in the sparkling whrill pool of Vienna."

Metternich had immense self-confidence about his own thinking. Even at the moment of drowning, he would stick to his decision. Even as he took refuge in England after the revolution of 1848, he declared that his way was the right way. His arrogance was boundless as was his self-confidence. After the fall of Napoleon, he prided himself on being the "conqueror of the conqueror". He boastfully used to say, "My position has the peculiarity that all eyes, all expectations are directed to precisely that point where I happen." to be. "). He used to say, "What I think I do, why can't millions of people do it?" He answered this himself, according to him, "so important is the reason that he never strayed from the parth of eternal law". His consciousness never entertained errors. He was ready to use any means to reach his goal. He considered necessity more important than morality. And these 'paths' were to maintain the status quo and the integrity of 'Austria' respectively.

Metternich was considered by both supporters and critics to be the chief spokesman for any opposition to revolution in the first half of the 19th century.Meternitz was one of the theorists of continental conservatism (who believed that the preservation of an absolute monarchy was essential) and believed that "a (dangerous minority) In his Political Testament (1820) he wrote that "the Presumpions" (the Presumpions) were motivated by the 'pure and eternal' law imposed on human society. , In the present century, the scope of human knowledge has greatly increased, but the scope of human love has not increased, resulting in the terrible social catastrophe of the French Revolution.

Although influenced by several theorists of the 18th century Enlightenment, Metternich was in no way an advocate of "Progress."). For him, the cosmic principle of society, politics or international relations was 'Equilibrium'. He believed that only status quo and order could maintain that balance. Metternich was Chancellor of Austria. It is naturally a responsibility to protect the interests of one's own state

He had Metternich was called the 'symbol of conservatism' for this attempt to preserve the more conventional system, which was characterized by the structure of the Austrian Empire, where the preservation of the 'status quo' was likely to serve imperial interests. But it is not correct to call Metternich a conservative in the narrow sense. Actually he was a statesman. Most of the countries and people of Europe wanted to get rid of the instability that the French Revolution and the rise of the Napoleonic Empire had caused in European politics. In 1820, he wrote to Czar Alexander of Russia, “The vocal demands of the middle classes have frightened and terrified the administration. This class stood between the people and the monarchy and sought to overthrow the rule of the king. He considered it a primary duty to free Europe from this instability. He opposed revolution-born liberalism, democracy and nationalism to save the continent from revolutionary unrest.

The nature of the Metternich system was apparently conservative domestically and reactionary internationally. But the statesman Metternich became a rider of conservatism under the pressure of the situation. In this context, the formation of the Austrian empire and the perspective of the Hapsburg dynasty are very important. The Austrian Empire was a conglomerate of isolated territories. Long before the French Revolution, the possibility of an Ottoman Turk invasion of Central Europe through South Eastern Europe had arisen. The Greater Austrian Empire was then formed to protect Central Europe from the invading Ottoman Turks. In reality there was no unifying element within this empire. The geographical locations of the Austrian Empire were (1) the original Austrian territories (Austria, Syria, Carindia, Carniola and the Tyrol): (2) the Bohemian territories (Bohemia, Moravia and Upper Silesia); (3) Hungary (including Galicia, Transylvania, Croatia) and (4) Italy's Lombardy and Venetia occupied in 1815 AD. The inhabitants included numerous ethnic groups, such as—Germans, Magyars, Italians, Rumanians, Slavs, etc. They were again divided into several tribal groups. For example - Czech, Slovak, Pole, Romanian, Serb, Kot, Slovene etc. German was recognized as the state language. But the number of people speaking other languages ​​was not small. In terms of religion, Catholics were the majority. As a result Protestants always suffered from religious insecurity. The union of a great empire meant only compulsory obedience to the monarchy. For this reason, Grant and Temperly (Grant and Temperly) said, "Austria was not a nation, but a monarchical machine.") Metternich's goal as chancellor was to preserve this declining empire somehow. But the 'system' he adopted to achieve that goal was the outlook of the Hapsburg dynasty and the social character of Austria. Medieval conservatism Patrons were the emperors of Austria. Opposing the spread of education, the emperor first said, "I have no need of learned man. I want faithful subjects. ") / Metternich proposed some social reforms.

The Emperor told him, "Keep yourself to what is old, for that is good. ". Also, a characteristic of Austria. David Thomson says, in Austria, the landed aristocracy was all of them limited in number. .However, many peasants of the country were under their control. There was no middle class in the right Austrian Empire. The number of merchants and artisans was negligible. The administration of the country was controlled by the local nobles.

In this environment, Metternich tried to maintain structure in the crumbling empire with the pole of conservatism. His aim was to protect the "status quo" from any change. He was determined to maintain the "status quo" without creating intransigence against all reforms. As Chancellor of Austria, as President of the Diet, Germany and as leader of the Powers-Co-operatives. He was eager to establish the status quo anarchy throughout Europe. In the case of Austria, Maternith's practice was to take advantage of the disunity of the Empire. According to the principle of 'Divide and Rule', he deployed German troops in Bohemia and Hungarian troops in Lomba. He nurtured and tried to promote nationalism. He had no faith in liberal governance and parliamentary system. He used to say, "Democrats could only change daylight into darkest night." He considered the rise of the middle class as "moral gangrene". For this reason, he took several repressive measures to prevent the rise of middle class influence within the empire. Government control and supervision over universities increased. Guptas are employed all over the country, even in educational institutions. Courses in History and Political Science are offered. In order to prevent European progressive ideologies from entering Austria, the appointment of foreign professors was prohibited. Study abroad for Austrian students is also strictly regulated. By taking away the freedom of the press, Metternich undermined the freedom of thought. He was even determined to maintain the bogus serfdom of the medieval system.

Another area of ​​application of Metternich's system was Germany. The 19th century was an era of romanticism in Germany. Schlegel, Nevolish, Unt, Fickte etc. brought to public mind the great aspects of national culture and tradition through their writings. The ideology of universalism was extended to family nationality. Universities were the centers of the German liberal movement, and anti-authoritarian sentiment was rapidly spreading among German students. Student organizations such as 'Burchenschaften' were formed. Based on the progressive ideals promoted by the teaching students and intellectuals of German universities, student organizations began to organize movements against reactionism. This liberal spirit of intellectuals and student society alarmed Metternich. He believed that failure to stop this German advance would stir up the Austrian public. During this time an incident at the University of Jena prompted Metternich to apply his strict control policies to Germany as well. On the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig and the tercentenary of the Protestant movement, the students of the University of Jena organized the Wartbag Festival (1817 AD).

Metternich * Assessment of achievements: 

Metternich's policies and his successes and failures have received mixed reactions from historians. Historians Ferrero, R. V. Shrabik, etc. have appreciated the immediate importance of Metternich's work. In their post-Napoleonic Europe, the common people desperately yearned for peace and security. Metternich also believed that “the people of Europe wanted peace—not freedom, so he was eager to preserve the 'status quo'. On the other hand, he has many B critics. His political contemporary Tsar Alexander denounced him as a 'liar'. Castlereagh dismissed Metternich as a 'political clown'. Modern historian Taylor (A.JP Taylor) thinks that Metternich had no principles or ideals of his own. According to Carlton Hayes (C. Hayes), Metternich was identified with the works of Shakespeare or Goethe. But he had no desire to fulfill their ideology, Lipson calls him an 'opportunistic and scheming diplomat'. Many have labeled him the 'enemy of progress' and the 'Minister of European Conservatism'.

An assessment of Metternich's politics requires consideration of two aspects—(1) immediate tangibility and (2) far-reaching significance. Metternich led Europe in a difficult political situation. On one side was French-Revolution-born liberalism and nationalism, on the other Desire for freedom from Napoleonic chaos. Metternich was active as the mouthpiece of the second movement. In this case three elements guided his path. First, Metternich was a representative of the declining Austrian Empire. Prevention of the development of nationalism and liberalism was essential to preserve the integrity of the multi-ethnic Austrian Empire. Out of loyalty to the Austrian Empire, he supported the principles of fairness, equality of arms, and the status quo. Second, he worked within the confines of a conservative environment. The Austrian emperors were orthodox, conservative and reactionary. "A loyal subject is more desirable than an enlightened one," said the Emperor, the first fancier. Sensing Metternich's reformist mindset, the emperor warned him, "It is your duty to express what I want. I do not want any change, for now is the time of reform." Jacques Druz said that, "It would be a mistake to see the chancellor as a systematic opponent to nationalistic principle." Metternich himself said, stability is not immobility is not immobility."). Third, Metternich, the self-proclaimed conqueror of the conquerors, harbored deep ambitions for authority in European politics. In his dream Europe only monarchy existed. He considered the national state, constitutional regime etc. as 'enemies of unity and progress'. He was able to control Europe from 1815-1848 by basing conservatism and using the weapon of reaction. After 1815, Metternich's policies and programs were well received in Europe. Hence the Metternich system cannot be said to be a complete failure or undesirable in terms of immediate needs. With few exceptions, Metternich managed to make the Vienna-System last for at least four decades. The princes of Russia, Prussia, Italy etc. were influenced by Metternich's method. This period of political deconstruction was completed under the leadership of Metternich, who is also known as "Prime Minister of Europe". 

The Metternich system was a failure in terms of far-reaching reactions. Although he was able to maintain the status quo of peace for a temporary period, he lacked political wisdom. His policies were opportunistic and immoral. He was blindly trying to cling to the old as he was to the French Revolution. The generosity of the new possibilities, the destructive form he only witnessed; The progressive character of the revolution was not caught in his eyes. He did not try to understand the pulse of life that exists even in democracy. He did not realize that positive potential cannot be stifled by negative processes. Fish said, "The idea that Europe could be ruled on the principle of negative conservatism was wholly chimerical. " According to historians Grant and Temperani, the Metternich system only delayed the development of the positive forces of revolution, but did not completely destroy it. Under the cover of his reactionism, the forces of liberalism, nationalism etc. gathered strength rapidly. Therefore, despite his best efforts, he could not prevent the breakdown of the old system. He could not stop the independence of Belgium or Greece. The sense of nationalism in Italy and Germany did not disappear either. Therefore, the revolution of 1848 started in France, but it is also a global phenomenon.

Europe was hit with much more force. His kingdom Austria was swept away by that political wave. Metternich was forced to leave Austria and take refuge in England.According to Stephen J. Lec, “Metternich had a rightly conservative attitude towards tradition and conventional regional institutions. But he instinctively opposed anything which suggested liberalism or social reforms" (b he instinctively opposed anything which suggested liberalism or social reforms) Kai could not proceed with the change with the reformers. The Diet of Hungary was opposed to both Austrian conservatism and radical separatism. Metternich repeatedly enlisted the help of Halo in the 1820s and 1830s for social and political reforms. Mitternith's blind adherence to conservatism paved the way for the eventual takeover by the extremist Louis Kasich. In 1848 AD, the Russian army had to be recruited to deal with the fiery situation in Hungary. According to Stephen Lee, it may not have been easy for Meternith to find a fair solution to the situation, but there is no doubt that the complex scope was compounded by his shortsightedness.

Changes in the internal situation in Austria were obstacles to Metternich's success. Emperor Francis of Austria was a supporter of Metternich's conservative views. During his reign, Metternich's authority over the civil administration of Austria was final. But the arrival of Ferdinand I on the throne of Austria could immediately destroy the atmosphere of mutual trust and dependence between the chancellor and the emperor. Ferdinand was the crown prince of the emperor. In the words of Stephen Lee: "Ferdinand proved totally incompetent, a mere shell of a ruler." The language of one of Ferdinand's ministers. "At this stage Austria was 'an absolute monarchy with a monarch.'" Administrative authority was not vested in either the emperor or the chancellor. Administrative authority was divided among Archduke Francis Charles, Colbert, and Metternich in such an unplanned manner that , good governance became impossible to implement. Colbert grew to such an extent in the 1820s and 1830s that the chancellor became an almost unimportant post. Colbert and Metternich also differed in their political outlooks. Colbert, a Czech, aimed to increase Bohemia and power. But Metternich wanted to preserve the existence of the entire Austrian Empire. For example, Colbert was in favor of reducing the allocation to the Austrian military sector, but Metternich believed that it would not be possible to maintain the unity of the Austrian Empire if the cohesion of the military was weak. Colbert's first choice of contact was Bohemia, but Metternich wanted to move from the center of Austria to the rich region of northern Italy. Rail connectivity. According to Metternich, Colbert was "an archetypal bureaucrat, lad in foresight and imagination."

Emperor Francis is also not a little responsible for the failure of Metternich. It is true that Metternich did not have much fame as a definition, but for mobilizing the Austrian bureaucracy. Some attempted constitutional changes, although they were ultimately unsuccessful. 

In AD Metternich proposed the formation of a modern cabinet instead of the traditional governance structure. In 1816, the Komm err-directorium was formed to coordinate economic plans and made many proposals for reforming the various provincial councils and the central council. But owing to the obstinacy of the Emperor Francis they were never carried into effect, or were soon abolished. The emperor firmly believed that the time for reform had not yet come. From that belief he used to say, "I want no chang. This is no time for reform,"

Stephen Lee suggests that a kind of pessimism permeated Metternich's mind as the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte threatened the existence of the old system. That pessimism turns to acrimony as attempts to preserve the old order fail one by one and opposing forces mobilize. For this reason his third wife mocked Metternich as 'all cynics' and 'a man to whom no one listens'. Alison Phillips says that "for a tired and timid generation he was necessary man and it was his misfortune that he survived his usefulness.") / Perhaps Metternich forgot that, "as he grew older, the world regained its youth." Of course, Metternich's own assessment was just the opposite. To the last day he declared aloud that he could not make mistakes. This was the difference between him and ordinary people. It was probably from that unshakable confidence that in the last phase of his political life he said, "Sooner or later in this world I I should have come. If I had come earlier I would have enjoyed this world; if I had come later I would have been a part of building a new world. But I was exhausted trying to preserve the existence of the present decadent society." Perhaps, this is the main tragedy of Metternich's life.

 Causes of Napoleon's Fall, An Analysis:

Content:-

1. continental system
2. Peninsular War
3. Moscow campaign
4. Napoleon's responsibility for stubborn policies

As wonderful as the story of Napoleon Bonaparte's rise is, the history of his fall also evokes some wonder. He started life as a minor bowler. And ended his political career as Emperor of France. But there was no king in his body. Without monarchical tradition, the monarchist of the French nation was able to become emperor only through indomitable morale, energy and a sound assessment of the situation. Between 1799 and 1807, England defeated the major powers of Europe and became the undisputed hero of almost all of Europe. But the downfall began soon after. From the lofty pinnacle of glory he fell little by little into the abyss of failure.

Generally speaking, boundless ambition and overconfidence were largely responsible for his downfall. His continued success in his rise in life, rising from simple gunner to one of the generals of France and finally to first consul to the emperor's prince.

His confidence was so overshadowed that he forgot the 'Midway caution' in the words of Marshall Foch, "Napoleon forgot that man cannot be God and that the individual is above the nation and the whole human race." There are moral rules. He also forgot that war is not the ultimate goal, the power of peace is greater than war.” (Arrogance came from overconfidence. Because of arrogance, Napoleon could no longer trust anyone. Truthful or forthright. He could not tolerate advisers. Chaptal, one of his advisers, lamented, “He (Napoleon) did not want advisers, servants. "("He wanted valets, not councillors."), Metternich, the Austrian ambassador to France, commented on Napoleon's arrogance, "At one point, restraint was merely an unnecessary obstacle to Napoleon." That is, at a time in his life, Napoleon forgot normal behavior and sense of reality. He brought about his downfall.

Ambitiously, he was drawn to the ideals of Julius Caesar or Alexander's world conquest (the French empire no longer satisfied him. He wanted to be the emperor of Europe. He dreamed of re-establishing the Holy Roman Empire and assuming the title of 'Emperor of Rome'. But he did not want to realize that , the specter of the Holy Roman Empire after the success of events like the American War of Independence or the French Revolution was not only unrealistic but ridiculous. So he could not celebrate himself after 1802. He could have held a seat of honor in Europe with the Treaty of Amiens in mind, but he did so. Couldn't, plunged into the European war, which ultimately made his downfall inevitable.

unlimited

Ambition and impracticality precipitated Napoleon's downfall, but these apparent causes alone cannot explain the failure of so great an empire or genius. There were several fundamental reasons for his downfall. Inherent weaknesses or limitations in empire and governance made Napoleon's downfall inevitable. (He was not one kingdom after another by military might. Napoleon himself said, "My rule at home and abroad included the empire by removing the basis of authority. The people feared this empire, loyalty was 'fear' ("Abroad and at home / reign only through the fear Inspire. "). But it is only through intimidation that a limited number of people can be kept in subjection for a time. To keep a large number of people in subjection for a long time requires obedience. But that was not the case with Napoleon. As Napoleon himself said, "Permanent success is achieved by animal power. No" ("Brute force has never attained anything durable. "). Indeed

David Pramson states that "The Napoleonic Empire was doomed because of its inherent and self-defeating contradictions." The Napoleonic Empire was the spread of revolution in Europe. He ascended the seat of liberator, ending medieval inequality and exploitation of the newly conquered countries. He established a republic in the conquered territories and established a system of governance. But Napoleon soon replaced the Republic .

Introduced monarchical rule in the states He again endeavored to bind them with the chains of despotism. This contradiction incited the masses against his empire. Within a few days it became clear to the people of Europe that the goal of all Napoleon's actions was to serve the interests of France. At the time of issuing the Continental, he himself said, "My policy is France before all. One-sidedness could not be tolerated forever by nations like Italy or Germany. Bur

The foundations of the empire were weakened. An example of the contradictions of Napoleon's empire is the conflict between nationalism and autocracy. Napoleon helped to awaken the national consciousness by bringing together various isolated and conflicting ethnic groups into one regime, one meaningful society. The liberality of the revolution infused optimism among the B nations. But Napoleon's "symbol of revolution" aimed at establishing new autocracies in the newly conquered states. Peter Gale complains that Napoleon never cared about the wishes and desires of his subordinates. He was not at all interested in knowing what people wanted. His aim was to increase the glory of his family Naturally the nationalistic populace rose against his family dictatorship which hastened the decline of the empire. Hot

Another reason for Napoleon's failure was the administrative defects of the empire. Governance was highly centralized and individualistic. As a result of hypercentrism, the entire system collapses as the central power collapses. Lack of infrastructure for problem solving at the local level made it easy for regionalism to spread against the centre, while this purely imperial regime did not build a worthy legacy. As a result, if Napoleon's personal mistakes or laxity hit the foundation of the empire, along with Napoleon's physical and mental depression, the speed of the empire also slowed down.

The French army, indoctrinated in revolutionary ideals, fought with a sense of loyalty to country and nation. With the help of this force, Napoleon was unstoppable. But as Sattar grew, his army included people of various nationalities. As a result, the character of the army is weakened. Among these multinational forces was professionalism, not national loyalty. Dispositions loosened the skills of the army and led to failure.

Thus inherent flaws and weaknesses kept Napoleon's empire in a state of instability from the very beginning. After 1807, blinded by his power, he undertook a series of violent and suicidal programs. In 'Autobiography' he himself admits that several wrong decisions like the Great Siege, Spanish War etc. led to his downfall. The continental blockade originated in a blind resistance to the invincible England. In the words: 'Nation of traders, manufactures and shopkeepers', he planned a continental blockade to financially ruin England. But this ambitious and unrealistic plan failed; From here Parbhu was involved in several battles like the Spanish War, the Moscow campaign and the occupation of the kingdom of Spain.

In 1804, Napoleon moderated the outbreak of Catholic religious sentiment by signing the 'Reconciliation Pact' with the Pope. This is indicative of his foresight. But in 1808 he declared himself an 'enemy of religion' by abandoning the papacy and enslaving the pope. His anti-Catholicism led to a religious revival. This event loosened the foundations of his empire, albeit slightly.

The occupation of Spain was a blatant example of Napoleon's arrogance and imperialism. He was labeled a 'traitor' by occupying an ally for no reason. It was here that he first encountered the collective will of a nation. Napoleon thought it possible to defeat the peace of mind by force of arms. But it was not possible. All his plans failed in the face of strong resistance from the Spanish entity. Engaging in a long and exhausting war in Spain, he depleted the treasury, army, manpower, etc. of France. Again his failure in Spain quickly infected the other nations under the empire, and raised a powerful opposition to his despotism.

Another example of Napoleon's imprudence and recklessness is the Moscow campaign. Because he could have fought with all his might on the western front if Russia had been an ally. But by attacking Russia in the pretense of power, he was simultaneously involved in the war on the eastern and western fronts. Not only that, his history of defeat in this case was also shameful. He was defeated by Russian maneuvers and destroyed a large army and vast sums of money in a no-nonsense war. His 'Grand Army' was completely shattered. The grief of this defeat made him almost a past figure at home and abroad. This failure of the invincible Grand Army paved the way for the Liberation War.

The distinctive and characteristic tactics of Napoleon's army in the early wars of Austria Prussia and England were stifled, the latter could not. Because of the constant war with the French forces, the forces of other countries also learned Napoleon's tactics or discovered strategies to counter him. The constant opposition of England, the weakness of French forces in naval warfare, the combined opposition and war of the great European powers, and many other factors, combined with the inherent defects and weaknesses of Napoleon's empire, made his downfall inevitable. 

 European Energy Cooperative:

Content:-

1. Fear inspiration from Napoleon
2. The interests of every authoritarian state
3. Role of Metternich 

Russia, Prussia, Austria and England played a major role in bringing down Napoleon Bonaparte. After the fall of Napoleon, these victorious powers introduced a new political order in Europe at the Conference of Vienna. The main problem before them then was to perpetuate the Vienna Decision and maintain peace in Europe. At that moment every state felt that a storm of protest would arise against the decision of Vienna and that only by combined efforts could they solve the problem. So the victorious powers realized the need to establish a permanent international organization. Russia and Austria drafted two treaties for this purpose. These are respectively known as 'Holy Alliance' and 'Quadruple Alliance'.

And the Holy Covenant: The originator of the Holy Covenant was Alexander I, Tsar of Russia. He was sentimental and idealistic. He was particularly influenced by religion when he came in contact with a nun named von Kudiner. In addition, a kind of religious renaissance began in Europe during the period under discussion. Influenced by this religion, Alexander believed that if European monarchs determined their domestic and foreign policies in accordance with Christian theology, the disorder in Europe would be alleviated. Based on this idea, Alexander urged the Christian nations of Europe to form an alliance. For this purpose he composed the 'Draft of the Holy Covenant'. The plan was officially announced on 26th September 1815. It is said in the Holy Covenant – (1) The signatories shall treat each other as brothers.

He will treat the Kamcharas like the father of the royal family. (3) All other European monarchs except the Pope and the Sultan of Turkey were forced to join forces to govern the country by means of 'Justice, Love and Punishment'. The Pope was a supporter of secular politics and the Sultan of Turkey was a Muslim, so they were excluded. Russia, Prussia and Austria sign the Holy Pact. But England refused to sign it for various reasons.

In practice the sacred covenant was void. Only Tsar Alexander I had no confidence in the treaty. Austria or Prussia joined it only to please the Nar Czar. Metanric himself called this agreement a 'high sounding nothing'. To Talera, it was a 'ridiculous deal'. Castlereagh regarded it as 'mysterious folly'. The Holy Covenant was, in his words, 'a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense'. In fact, it did not contain the minimum terms of any contract. That is, any contract has a specific goal and a well-defined roadmap to reach that goal. But he was having none of it; Naturally this sacred covenant is not particularly effective. But the German philosopher Goethe believed that "nothing greater or more useful for mankind had been invented." -Can do no harm to the signatory states. In the words of Jiva Critic: "This treaty proved how weak an effort to build a theological (Christian) nation-state can be in realpolitik."

Quadruple Alliance: England, Austria, Prussia and Russia signed the Quadruple Alliance on the same day as the Second Treaty of Paris.

The Quadruple Pact was much more realistic and effective. In fact, the European Energy Cooperative was formed on the basis of the Quartet Agreement. The signatory states of the Quadrilateral Agreement undertake that, (1) the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna, the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Seymour shall be maintained in all circumstances. (2) No Bonaparte shall ever be allowed to sit on the French throne. (3) The peace of Europe shall be maintained on the basis of mutual negotiation and co-operation. (4) The Signatory States shall meet from time to time to review the political situation in Europe and to decide on the solution of problems arising.

Although such a decision was made, the Signatory States IV were not in agreement from the beginning. Austria's differences with England in particular were substantial from the start. England's objective was to maintain the new state system adopted by Vienna and to prevent the rise of a formidable figure like Napoleon Bonaparte in France. But Metternich of Austria was a stickler for conservatism and stagnation. Revolution in his eyes was a symbol of destruction. As the representative of a declining empire, he viewed parliament or popular representation with horror. So Metternich made any changes to this treaty. Wanted to use it as a weapon of opposition and anti-liberalism. The very nature of English politics was opposed to interference in the internal affairs of any country. But Metternich wanted to keep the monarchy intact and to prevent any increase in popular power or mass movement.

  To interfere in the internal affairs of the country. This ideological conflict between conservative Austria and liberal England undermined the future of the treaty from the start. In the end it was decided, according to Castlereagh's proposal, that intervention in the affairs of other states would not be a declared policy. But if necessary, Congress will be convened to try to solve the problem. First, Russia, Prussia, Austria and England signed the "Four Power Pact". France was later added.

According to Grant and Temperley, the 'Congress System' began with Article 6 of the Quadruple Pact. In the past, statesmen used to decide the diplomacy alone, instead, the system of determining relations based on joint negotiations was introduced. But some think that then there was no concept of Congress-system in real sense. Therefore, they could not solve any problem together, nor could they form any international association.

The first meeting of the European Energy Co-operative was convened under the provisions of the Quadruple Agreement. In the city of I-la Chapelle (1818 AD). Leaders of Russia, Prussia, Austria and diplomats such as Metternich, Castlereagh, Wellington, Hardenberg, Richelieu etc. were present in this conference. France having already paid its due reparations, it was decided that the victorious army would be withdrawn from France and that France would be included in the Cooperative. The conference ordered Sweden's King Barnardot to follow the treaty he had made with Norway, and ordered the monarch to govern well. Thus energy-cooperatives play the role of proper peacekeepers in the case of small countries.

But differences between energy cooperatives became apparent in solving problems related to the interests of the big powers. King Ferdinand of Spain sought the help of the Cooperative to re-establish his authority over the rebellious Spanish colonies in South America. But already England's commercial relations with those rebellious Spanish colonies had strengthened. Therefore, England strongly opposed the intervention of Shakti Cooperative in this regard. Again, when England demanded to stop the prohibited slave trade, other big countries opposed it. Thus began the monopolization of this La Chapelle meeting.

The next meeting was held at Tropo (1820 AD). Here the differences become more pronounced. In the meantime, the Spaniards had wrested a liberal constitution from the Spanish king in a popular uprising. Czar Alexander attempted to employ force-cooperatives to suppress the Spanish rebellion. Alexander offered to intervene with the Cooperative of Powers to suppress the rebellious Spanish colonies.

But England opposed interference in Spain's internal affairs. Because England feared that the Spanish monarchy might become stronger with the help of allies. And in that case Britain's commercial interests in the Spanish colonies would increase. Metternich also supported England. Because Austria did not want the growth of Russia's power and prestige in Europe. Within a few days, liberal revolts broke out in Napes and Portugal. Austria's interests are disturbed by it. Metternich resolved to use power-cooperatives to establish conservatism. For this purpose he wrote a document called 'Protocol of Tropo'. It is said that the constitution which a state will give voluntarily is the same will be valid. If any regime is established in any state which is dangerous to other states, the energy cooperative can take action against it. England strongly opposed it. According to him, interference in the internal affairs of a country is 'antithetical to the principle of sovereignty. But despite the objections of England, the other three states passed it. As a result, England became indifferent to energy cooperatives.

The next meeting was held at Laibach (1821 AD). Here, according to Tropo's manifesto, a program of suppression of the rebellion was adopted in Naples and Piedmont.

The fourth meeting of Shakti-Cooperatives was held in the city of Verona. The main topics of discussion at this meeting were the revolt in Spain and the movement of the Greeks. Russia was eager to suppress the movement of the Greeks. But it was thwarted by the opposition of Austria and England. The Powers-Cooperative decided to intervene in the rebellion in Spain. In protest, England boycotted the energy-cooperative. Metternich then set out to subdue the Spanish colonies in South America. This angered England, because its president Monroe announced his famous 'Monroe Doctrine'. "America is for Americans," he said. The United States will not tolerate any country interfering in America's internal affairs. As a result, Metternich's objectives failed. British Prime Minister Canning proudly said, "I have created a new world (America) to balance the old world." In his words: "I have brought a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old."

Energy cooperatives were virtually destroyed after the Verona-meeting. Tsar Alexander convened another meeting of the Cooperative in St. Petersburg (1825 AD) to resolve the problem of the Greek rebellion. Here the differences between Russia and other states are sharp. England first announced that the country would not join the Energy-Cooperation Conference. In this situation the Shakti Cooperative breaks up.

Europe's energy-cooperation lasted for about ten years. During these ten years Shakti Cooperative was successful in some cases and failed in some cases. Both these successes and failures were the natural consequences of contemporary politics. The source of power-co-operation was the Congress of Vienna and aimed at curbing the voices of liberalism and nationalism. On the other hand, the Spanish colonies of Piedmont, Naples, Portugal, Greece etc. aimed to build a liberal constitution or movement for independence. Austria, Russia, Prussia etc. were active in suppressing these movements. But England was against suppressing democratic mass movements in any other country on moral grounds. Because of these contradictions, the Shakti-Cooperative could never take up a well-coordinated programme. The declared goal of the Shakti-Samoabha was also not fixed. The Power Cooperative was originally created to protect Europe from France. But after France joined the energy cooperative, that need disappeared. But then the power-co-operation was aimed at suppressing liberal movements in other countries of Europe. In the words of Grant and Temperani: "After 1820 the Congress system became in fact a trade union of kings for suppressing the liberties of the people."

Failure of energy-cooperatives was normal. A combination of several factors can be observed for this. First, the main factor behind the formation of power-cooperatives was Napoleon-related panic.

So it is called 'By-product of Napoleonic War'. The great powers forgot their conflict of interests and united to seize the one and the same enemy, Napoleon. But as the influence of the French Revolution and Napoleon waned, so did their own conflict of interest. This extreme result occurs through the collapse of cooperatives.

Second, the diversity of national interests and objectives of the European powers and mutual suspicion and competition made its decline inevitable. No organization can succeed without uniformity of purpose and ideals. In Ketelby's words: "No federation can endure without a modicum of common interest." Tsar Alexander I sought to halt England's advance with the help of other powers. England, on the other hand, wanted To prevent Bush-advance in the Balkans with the help of other states. Because of these differences, the big states could never come to a unanimous decision.

Thirdly, the ideological conflicts of the co-operative states were also strong as were the conflicts of interest. England was liberal but others were autocratic. Hence the difference in outlook between liberal England and other conservative states. David Thomson says, “The conservative powers considered the European Power-Cooperative a bulwark against revolution, but England did. It is a flux gate through which a wave of controlled liberalism will be released.” This ideological conflict was largely responsible for its downfall.

Fourth, England's abandonment of power-cooperatives weakens co-operatives. After the Verona conference, England withdrew from the alliance. Canning, the new British Prime Minister, felt that England had been discredited and damaged by joining the alliance. So he withdrew England from the power alliance due to the intervention of Spanish colonial cooperatives. Then American President Monroe declared his "America for the Americans" doctrine and the power-cooperative fell silent. Fearing England's resignation and American threats, the Power-Cooperatives were forced to abandon their announced plans. As a result, the image of Shakti-Cooperatives is greatly tarnished.

Fifth, energy-cooperation made the grave mistake of considering the decisions of the Vienna-Conference as inviolable. According to David Thomson, energy-cooperatives should have recognized historical changes. Attempts by conservatism to stem the inevitable rise of nationalism and democracy were to go against the grain of history. Naturally its decline and end was the inevitable outcome of history.

The Characteristic Of Electrical

 The Characteristic Of Electrical 

The characteristic electrical phenomenon or surge electrical phenomenon (usually written Z0) of a regular conductor is that the quantitative relation of the amplitudes of voltage and current of one wave propagating on the line; that's, a wave traveling in one direction within the absence of reflections within the different direction. or else, and equivalently, it is outlined because the input electrical phenomenon of a conductor once its length is infinite. Characteristic electrical phenomenon is decided by the pure mathematics and materials of the conductor and, for a regular line, isn't addicted to its length. The SI unit of characteristic electrical phenomenon is that the ohm.

Transmission line model

The characteristic electrical phenomenon omega is that the quantitative relation of the voltage and current of a pure curving wave of constant frequency traveling on the road. This relation is additionally the case for finite transmission lines till the wave reaches the top of the road. Generally, a wave is mirrored back on the road within the wrong way. once the mirrored wave reaches the supply, it's mirrored over again, adding to the transmitted wave and dynamic  the quantitative relation of the voltage and current at the input, inflicting the voltage-current quantitative relation to now not equal the characteristic electrical phenomenon. This new quantitative relation as well as the mirrored energy is named the input electrical phenomenon.

The input electrical phenomenon of associate degree infinite line is capable the characteristic electrical phenomenon since the transmitted wave is rarely mirrored back from the top. Equivalently: The characteristic electrical phenomenon of a line is that electrical phenomenon that, once terminating associate degree absolute length of line at its output, produces associate degree input electrical phenomenon of equal worth. this is often thus as a result of there's no reflection on a line terminated in its own characteristic electrical phenomenon.

Surge electrical phenomenon loading

In power transmission, the characteristic electrical phenomenon of a conductor is expressed in terms of the surge electrical phenomenon loading (SIL), or natural loading, being the facility loading at that reactive power is neither created nor absorbed:

Loaded below its SIL, the voltage at the load are larger than the system voltage. Above it, the load voltage is depressed. The Ferranti impact describes the voltage gain towards the remote finish of a awfully gently loaded (or open ended) conductor. Underground cables usually have a awfully low characteristic electrical phenomenon, leading to associate degree SIL that's generally in far more than the thermal limit of the cable.

👉Ampère's circuital law – construct in classical electromagnetism

👉Characteristic acoustic resistance

👉Iterative electrical phenomenon, characteristic electrical phenomenon may be a limiting case of this

👉Maxwell's equations – Equations describing classical electromagnetism

👉Wave electrical phenomenon

👉Space fabric – hypothetic plane with resistance of 376.7 ohms per sq..