Pitting corrosion Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Pitting corrosion - Essay Example Pitting is most commonly induced very aggressive agents e.g. halides like chloride ions which can destroy protective or passive surface films of aluminium, stainless steels, nickel alloys, etc. The degradation can be initiated by a tiny surface defect; a scratch, local change in composition, or damage to a protective coating. ("Pitting" 4). It occurs when these alloys are exposed to chloride [or halide] containing solutions. (DME: 7) The reaction begins when a passive film or protective surface layer is broken down. After this initiation (local breakdown of the film) an anode forms where the film has broken, while the unbroken film (or protective layer) acts as a cathode, thus accelerating localised attack and pits formation at the anodic spots (DME: 6). Further corrosion will continue due to the high acidification (due to high chloride concentration) of the electrolyte inside the growing crevice (DME: 7). Pitting can be prevented or slowed down by using "corrosion inhibitors such as hexamine, sodium nitrite and condensation products of aldehydes among others" ("Pitting" 7).

Management and Organisational Behaviour Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Management and Organisational Behaviour - Essay Example It deals with the understanding of thoughts, feelings and behaviors of the members; the interactions being necessary in an organizational context towards achievement of organizational objectives (Martin & Fellenz, 2010, pp.9-14). Human behavior at work has been studied by researchers since early times and the concept of behavioral approach implies that human resources are the major contributors in the output of a business. Gradually with time several approaches towards understanding the human behavior have been focused for enhancing the performances of business organizations (Gupta, 2009, pp.24-25). It has been studied that several external factors may affect the organizational processes and internal behavior. These factors may also include the global economic movements, the regulations of government, alterations in technology and culture or other environmental issues (Capitalism and organizational behavior, n.d., p.11). In case of the UK, it has been obtained that the booming econom y that was prevailing in the nation was collapsed by the impacts of the recent global recession, thus affecting the organizational performances and behaviors as well. This report would primarily focus on the effects of the recession on the UK business organizations and find out the modifications in behavior approach that might benefit the firms, based on a case study of a Kingfisher plc. Impact of Recession on the UK economy and Organizational Behaviors: Until the latter part of the last decade the economy of the United Kingdom seemed to be in a period of endless boom. Levels of unemployment were relatively low, house prices were rising pretty quickly and people seemed to be reaping the rewards.  However, the Credit/Liquidity Crunch and subsequent recession brought this to a crashing halt and a number of organizations have subsequently gone into administration / receivership and many more have had to tighten their belts and cut costs just to survive.  The UK economy was to a gre at extent dependent on the services of finance and business particularly in the last decade. With an assumption that growth would take place inevitably, the government of the nation had an increased rate of debt, implying the recession to have had a severe impact on the economy of the country (Killick, 2008). The crisis in the UK was mainly realized in the financial sector, which represented the most active business area for the country. The rest of the economy was thus subsequently affected. The financial calamity had developed into a credit crisis that had severe impacts on the business organizational performances affecting their abilities. Also, the consumers’ capability to borrow and purchase was affected and declined to a great extent. The availability of finances from the public also started getting limited thus impacting the â€Å"ability of the UK government to use fiscal policy to combat the crisis† (Killick, 2008). A very significant consideration in this con text of study relates to the association between the recession and the behavior among organizational members. Recession impacts the motivation of the human resources primarily with respect to unemployment. The issue of unemployment as a consequence of economic crisis also focuses on the welfare of the employees as well as motivation. The Expectancy theory of organizational behavior, reflecting focus on individuals, facilitates the understanding of members’ ability to motivate themselves during the periods of recession (Sinclair, 2010). Countries like the UK have been found to manage the circumstances of recession through cost cutting measures that include undertaking administrative and receivership measures or layoffs leading to unemployment. Behavioral

Is action more important than knowledge Essay Example for Free

Is action more important than knowledge Essay Pablo Picasso once said that, Action is the foundational key to all success. In some ways I must agree with Picasso. To succeed in something of importance and value you must take action and not idle away as action speaks louder than words. Though knowledge is important because in some aspects as you cannot be illiterate about your cause if you wish to succeed. Knowledge is a key aspect of human beings. In order to advance in our society you must gain knowledge. Therefore to take action you must have a basis of information in order to be successful. You should not act in haste or proudness but rather develop your pool of information and make an informed decision to acquire your desired results, ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. Some may say that taking action is more important than acquiring knowledge. They may say that people may spend too much precious time on gaining knowledge and miss there time of action. History does not remember those who were knowledgeable but rather those who took action in a steadfast manner. Though I must disagree. History are full of those who carelessly and in alacrity took an ill-informed decision that was destructive on humanity. For example in when Lenin, the first leader of communist Russia died, his testament was not read out in public. This testament would have kicked Stalin out of the Communist Party and therefore would have stopped the mass murder that happened due to Stalins orders under his reign. Due to the ill-thought Trotsky and other high members of the Bolsheviks, the decision was to not read out the testament in public. This enabled Stalin to take power and soon Stalin became a despotic leader of the communist parties and created a terror in Soviet Russia as well as the rest of the world. Therefore I believe knowledge is of key importance. This is due to the timeless evidence of how acquiring knowledge is more important than taking knowledge, like the testament of Lenin and this story; There once was a man named Pars. He was thought to be slow as before making every decision he would sit and ponder about the connotations and effects this decision would have on him and his fellow classmates.

The Space Race: Is Funding for NASA Still Relevant?

The Space Race: Is Funding for NASA Still Relevant? Abstract Since its inception in 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has spent a total $1.3 trillion dollars adjusted for inflation. This paper examines the debate between two opposing views on funding for NASA. The debate is broken down into two groups, pro-funding and anti-funding. The arguments between both sides, while very similar, are opposite in their views. The pro-funding side is in the opinion that, positive economic impact, international relations, and planning for the future call for increased funding. Those anti-funding argue that funding NASA impedes the economy, there is little to no return on investment, and that the United States should be focused on the present, rather than the future. This paper examines both sides of the argument, weighs each of the opinions, and examines how the relationship of this issue is pertains to the field of Public Administration. The author states his view and gives his recommendations on the issue. Keywords: NASA, public funding, public administration, national debt Ten years after the start of the Cold War, the U.S.SR launched the first artificial Earth Satellite into space. In response to tensions with the former Soviet Union, the United States National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, launched its first satellite into space, kick starting what is known as The Space Race. A few months later, NACA was dissolved and superseded into NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Since its founding in July of 1958, NASA has averaged roughly 0.9% (Rawden, 2017) of the annual United States Federal budget. However, since the 1990s, that average has seen a significant decrease. In February of 2016, 58 years since NASA was founded, Congress surpassed NASAs requested budget of $18.5 billion and approved $19.3 billion (AG, 2016) to fund NASA. With the House and Senate both approving a Federal Budget of $3.9 trillion (Congressional Budget Office, 2017), NASAs current budget only equates to 0.49% of the overall budget. However, with C ongress surpassing the NASAs requested budget, this marks the first time in five years they have seen a substantial budget increase. With budget forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office (2016) putting the nation at a debt of $20.1 trillion by 2018, this leaves public administrators to question whether this budget increase and NASA itself is worth the money. As Public Administrators, we can see that the debate over the funding of NASA is broken down into two opposing viewpoints. Those in favor are compelled by several factors, such as, public admiration for NASA, strengthening international relations, and planning for the future. While those opposed argue that funding NASA impedes the economy, there is little to no return on investment, and that the United States should focus on the present, rather than the future. No matter what side you are on, we can see that the debate over the funding of NASA is important to the field of Public Administration. This paper examines both sides of the debate over the funding NASA and how public administrators can use this debate as a case study for future problems. Viewpoint #1: Those in Favor A 2015 PEW Research survey shows that 68% of Americans had a favorable view of NASA (Motel, 2015), with those of higher education having more favorability. The survey also cites a different PEW survey conducted in 2011 that found 58% of the public said it was essential that the U.S. continue to be a world leader in space exploration. These studies confirm that the public has great admiration toward NASA, but there is a need to justify the high price tag of space exploration. This justification can be argued with several factors: Inventions and Technology, International Relations, and Future Planning. Inventions and Technology After a Korean airliner accidentally strayed into Soviet airspace in 1983, and was subsequently shot down, then President Ronald Regan declassified the use of Global Positioning System (Brustein, 2014). This 20-year-old technology was developed during joint experiments between the Navy and NASA using NASAs advancements in satellites and technology. GPS is today one of the most widely used inventions that NASA helped create. However, there are also a wide range of inventions and technology that funding of NASAs research and development helped to create. In NASAs magazine Spinoff (NASA, 2008), they credit themselves with several medical inventions, including artificial limbs improvements, thanks to innovations in robotics and shock-absorbing materials. When NASA needed a stronger material for their landing parachutes, Goodyear developed a new fibrous material that is five times stronger than steel. Goodyear then used this technology in their tires to create the longer-lasting tires we have today. NASA also created Solar Energy technology, which sparked the clean-energy movement. While it is hard to quantify NASAs return on investment, the countless advances they have made on inventions and technology have helped shape our world and boost our economy. International Relations While NASA is the highest spending space agency in the world, there are many other countries that work with the United States to continue space exploration. While the U.S. was the only country to land on the moon, future explorations require international cooperation. In 2006 NASA and China reached an agreement promising that both countries would strengthen exchanges, enhance mutual trust, develop a lasting friendship, and promote cooperation in relevant fields (Foley, 2014). This policy is necessary to continue the economic prosperity and relationship between the two countries. NASA also collaborates with 15 other countries to maintain and expand the International Space Station. This partnership strengthens relationships and encourages trade agreements. In turn, the trade agreements help boost our economy and strengthen NASAs case for a high return on investment. Future Planning Proponents of continuing to fund NASA usually break down Future Planning into two parts: Population Growth and Earth Security. The population is undoubtedly growing exponentially. The UN estimates the world population will reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 (UN, 2015). This growth raises the question of earth sustainability. The world will eventually run out of resources and room to house and feed its people. Many people believe that the solution is in space exploration. With NASA currently planning expeditions to Mars, a planet with possible habitation aspects, there is a strong belief that humans can become an interplanetary species. This belief is only possible if we continue funding NASA, and being the leader in space exploration. Earth Security is another part of NASAs responsibilities. NASA not only monitors the weather, but asteroid and nautical sea patterns. Defunding our space program could potentially be disastrous if NASA could no longer take preventative steps to combat cli mate change. View Point #2: Those Against While there is no doubt there is a great love for NASA, defunding the space program would be beneficial for our economy. PEW Research conducted a study in 2014 finding that although a majority of people were in favor of space exploration, only 22% of people said that the U.S. spends too little on space exploration (Wormald, 2014). This leaves opponents questioning as to why the U.S. spends billions of dollars each year to fund NASA. Those arguing for defunding the space program have three main reasons: NASA impedes the economy, there is little to no return on investment, and that the United States should focus on the present, rather than the future. Impeding the Economy With a forecasted debt of $20.1 trillion by 2018, many politicians are trying to find ways to reduce our spending. While only 0.5% of the national budget, $19.1 billion dollars is no small amount of money. Adjusted for inflation, NASA has accounted for $1.1 trillion in expenditures since its founding in 1958 (Rawden, 2017). Since the introduction of the new fleet of space shuttles in 1971, each launch carries a price tag of around $1.5 billion per flight. Companies such as SpaceX have been awarded contracts totaling $1.6 billion for 6 flights to the ISS. It is no wonder NASA has started to turn towards private companies to send supplies and expeditions into space, when private companies can accomplish the goals at a smaller price. In 2014, NASA announced that U.S. companies SpaceX and Boeing were awarded $6.4 billion for future space flights. All this money could have been allocated toward paying back debts and protecting the financial future of the United States. Return on Investment In the opposing view, I stated that it would be hard to quantify NASAs Return on Investment. This lack of calculation gives cause to those opposed to funding the space program. While NASA is credited with countless inventions, but the price tag for inventing them is hard to justify. A 2011 PEW Research study shows that only 38% of people think the space program contributes to a lot to scientific advancements, and that 52% of people believe that human astronauts are non-essential to the program (Kennedy, 2015). These statistics can be viewed as a misallocation of NASA funding. If there has not been a significant invention since NASA published its 2008 list of technologies that benefit our lives and its last crowning achievement, sending Pathfinder to mars, costing $265 million, NASA has not truly justified its recent return on investment. Prioritizing the Present As NASA continues to look to the future, opponents say we should focus on the present. With a large National Debt, the United States needs to prioritizing its current finances so it can continue to have a future. While the earth is made up of a finite amount of resources, it is unlikely that they will run out before we can fix our economy. The sun is not estimated to begin to die for another 5 billion years (Scudder, 2015), and only 3% of the earth supports more than half of humanity (Nuwer, 2015). In other words, the world is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and we are not going to run out of room on earth. Instead of worrying about the future, the U.S. needs to prioritize on the present. NASA needs to look at all their assets, and begin to look at what it can liquidize. The space shuttle program alone is valued at nearly $200 billion (Hsu, 2011).ÂÂ   If the U.S. defunded NASA and worked toward privatizing the program and selling its assets, the U.S. could be benef icial toward reducing the U.S. debt. The Military and Department of Defense need to absorb most of NASA while privatizing and selling the rest. Afterwards, the U.S. needs to begin to cut the enormous Defense Budget, to make up most, if not all, of the deficit.ÂÂ   If the United States focuses on prioritizing the present, by takes steps to reduce its expenditures, such as reducing or eliminating NASAs budget, we can begin to see a brighter, less constrictive future. Assessing the Arguments Both sides of the debate have similar yet conflicting arguments. The pro-funding NASA side argues that NASA boosts the economy by, facilitating inventions and new technology, strengthening international relations, and planning for the future. While those against argue that funding NASA impedes the economy, there is little to no return on investment, and that the United States should focus on the present, rather than the future. Whether NASA helps to boost or impedes the economy is the biggest aspect of the debate. While the space agency can never truly be recognized for their accomplishments, it is my belief that NASA has helped the economy in the past and is no longer the innovative and economically stimulating agency it once was. Public interest in NASA is starting to dwindle as much as their budget, and it is only time before private companies, such as SpaceX start to take over. There is also no doubt that NASA has strengthened our international relationships with other space-orie nted nations. These relationships facilitate our trade agreements with one another, boosting our economy. If the U.S. were to defund NASA, it would make it hard to find a new avenue in which to continue those relationships. In the final argument, Future versus Present orientation, is the most heated side of the debate. At only 0.49% of the U.S. Budget, defunding NASA would hardly make a dent in the debt. However, the U.S. needs to start somewhere, as every little bit helps. If the U.S. were to privatize and sell NASAs assets, it would be able to make a noticeable difference on tackling the debt. Conclusion and Recommendation As Public Administrators, we should be concerned at every aspect of our national budget. I believe we should either go all in and increase funding of NASA, or privatize and sell the assets.ÂÂ   Both sides of the debate have compelling sides. If we were to increase the budget, we would continue international cooperation and trade agreements, possibly continue to see new inventions and technologies, and facilitate Americans love of space travel. However, forced to choose a side, I believe we should take the opposite route. The national debt is wildly out of control and if we do not take steps to fix our mistakes, the world could see a disastrous economic depression. By selling off some of NASAs assets to private companies and foreign countries, the U.S. would, in turn, can cash a sizable paycheck, and begin to pay off its debts. By privatizing NASA, the U.S. can also begin to turn the $19 billion funding toward the debt. If we do not begin to take action against our debt, the curr ent and future generations may see a disastrous financial future. The United States cannot continue down the current financial path it is taking, and defunding of NASA is a crucial step on the road to recovery. If the U.S. takes the route toward defunding NASA, that road can be used as a vital case study for Public Administrators. We will be faced at a time to do what is popular versus what is economically feasible. In times of economic hardship, the right path is not always the easiest. References AG: News Reviews in Astronomy Geophysics. (2016). U.S. boosts budget for NASA. Astronomy Geophysics, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p1.7 https://doiorg.spot.lib.auburn.edu/10.1093/astrogeo/atw014 Brustein, Joshua. (2014, December 4) GPS as We Know It Happened Because of Ronald Reagan. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12- 04/gps-as-we-know-it-happened-because-of-ronald-reagan Congressional Budget Office. (2017, February 8). The Federal Budget in 2016: An Infographic. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408 Congressional Budget Office. (2016, January 25). The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51129-2016outlook.pdf Foley, Jordan. (2014, April 16) Strategy for International Cooperation in Planning the Chinese Space Station. MIT Political Science Department Research. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2425862_code1609318.pdf?abstracti d=2425862mirid=1 Hsu, Jeremy. (2011, April 11). Total Cost of NASAs Space Shuttle Program: Nearly $200 Billion. Astrobiology Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/11358-nasa- space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html?_ga=1.261610826.693458589.1485213070 Kennedy, Brian. (2015, July 14). 5 facts about Americans views on space exploration. Fact Tank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about- americans-views-on-space-exploration/ Motel, Seth. (2015, February 3) NASA Popularity Still Sky-High. Fact Tank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/03/nasa-popularity-still-sky-high/ NASA (2008) NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives. Spinoff. Retrieved from https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html Nuwer, Rachel (2015, September 1). Is the world running out of space? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150901-is-the-world-running-out-of-space Rawden, Zachary. (2017, February 10). NASA Budgetary Breakdown. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/x/s!AqSRkru4qW2DlGLiBv3dpnZnmNwA Scudder, Jillian. (2015, February 13). The sun wont die for 5 billion years, so why do humans have only 1 billion years left on Earth?. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html UN. (2015, July 29). World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html Wormald, Benjamin. (2014, April 23). Americans keen on space exploration, less so on paying for it. Fact Tank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2014/04/23/americans-keen-on-space-exploration-less-so-on-paying-for-it/

Correcting Librarian Stereotypes Essay -- Library Career Profession

What do picture when you think of librarians? Librarians are often stereotyped as being conservative, orderly, thorough, and passive (1, 2, 3)? Perhaps the best known librarian stereotype is the "spinsterly and authoritarian naysayer over-concerned with regulations and maintaining a hushed library environment" (4). But where do these stereotypes come from, and are they really true? Perhaps librarians' professional invisibility is to blame for some of the stereotypes. Most people think that everyone who works in libraries is a librarian, and that librarian duties consist mainly of shelving and checking out books (5, 6). Think again! Librarians are not usually involved in shelving and circulation responsibilities. Much of the work librarians do isn't visible to library users. And even a children's story time involves behind-the-scenes work and knowledge. The history of libraries and librarianship may also contribute to these stereotypes. Public libraries were often started to "improve" working people, and librarians often really were "goody two shoes" (7). But although they still take their social responsibilities seriously, the librarians (and libraries) of today are very different. Keep reading to find out what librarians really do and who they really are. But first, follow me on a technological history of librarians. Where did the original stereotype of librarians as bun-wearing "shush-ers" come from? Let's think low tech--before the days of advanced communication technology, ideas were spread through word of mouth and writing. So did these traditional images come from interactions with real librarians which were then communicated amongst people and accepted into our society's lore of the librar... ...w.outsights.com/systems/dikw/dikw.htm>. In "Module 3: Introduction to Information and Digital Representations." LIBR 500: Foundations of Information Technology, Web CT Reading, Mary Sue Stephenson. 22. Stephenson, Mary Sue. "Module 3: Introduction to Information and Digital Representations." LIBR 500: Foundations of Information Technology, Web CT Reading. 23. Rybash, John M., Paul A. Roodin, and William J. Hoyer. Adult Development and Aging, 3d ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1995. 24. Scherdin, Mary Jane, and Anne Beaubien. "Shattering Our Stereotype: Librarians' New Image." Library Journal 12 (1 July 1995): 35-8. 25. Houdyshell, Mara, Patricia A. Robles, and Hua Yi. "What Were You Thinking: If You Could Choose Librarianship Again, Would You?" Information Outlook 3 (July 1999): 19-23.

Bertrand Russell disagreed with Berkeleys argument Essay

George Berkeley was an Irish bishop and empiricist. His core philosophy was ‘esse est percipi’ this translates to, to be, is to be perceived. Berkeley believed that both primary and secondary objects were perceiver dependent believed that the world was not was not separate from the mind ergo; he was an immaterialist (we perceive things in the mind). He started his argument for empiricism by stating that in order for things to exist they must be perceived, due to holding this view point he thought that everything depends on the mind. This raises an immediate problem. If everything is perceiver dependent, what happens when an object is not being perceived? Does it simply pop out of existence? This argument does not seem coherent. This is due to the idea being an extremely irrational understanding of the world. The concept can also be disproved. This is because if we could put a video camera into a room and leave it so no one perceived the room and the objects in it and it would not disappear. Berkeley later added to his argument, as an attempt to solve this problem that no object is un-perceived. He claims objects do not disappear out of exist due to there being a constant perceiver, God. This is as God is omnipresent therefore, he always perceives the world. Thus objects do not pop out existence as they are constantly perceived. However by adding the existence of God to his argument it became weak. This is due to a huge assumption. This assumption is that God exists. There are many arguments both for and against God’s existence, such as the teleological argument and the problem of evil. It seems strange to base a theory of object’s existence on a being whose existence is unproven. Bertrand Russell disagreed with Berkeley’s argument for objects existences. Russell argued that if he was sat in his chair and his cat was in one corner of the room and he turned round on his chair and the cat was at the other side of the room, according to Berkeley there was only two possible ways this could have happened. Firstly the cat could have popped out of existence when Russell turned on his chair and then popped back into existence when he had turned back round. Or secondly, the cat could have walked across the room when he was turned on the chair due to God perceiving it. Russell claimed that these two possibilities were irrational and we could not use these two claims for the existence of objects.

Non-violent Methods are Better Way of Training Children

As we know, physical punishment has always been an effective way for training animals. Once they become wild, flinging the whip is what we do to make them being well-behaved. However, does it work for training children? Are their behaviors all get better and better after that? In my point of view, I strongly object parents who admire that physical punishment is the best way to teach and train their own children. Although the pain of body is easy to make people learn the lesson, on the other hand, it may also be easy to leave the scars on body and heart, cause family problems and losing the opportunities for children to judge the right and wrong by themselves own.First of all, even the pain of punishment will disappear, the scars on body and heart somehow will remain for the entire life. With no doubt, teaching children not to spill the milk on the floor by simply slapping on their bottoms would be a rapid way to warn them not to make the same mistake again. However, I think your chil dren would remember how bad you treat them more than the lesson they’ve learned and reflect this rage on their children in the future by teaching them in same way. In addition, some researches even have shown the causes of some criminal’s psychological problems can be traced back to their parents’ serious physical punishment or even abuse. The former dictator of Iraq Saddam Hussein would be a good example.Second, without violence in the house, I believe children will have a happier childhood and get along with their parents better when they grow up. If we observe the relationship between parents and children more carefully, it is not hard to find out the happiness existing in the house is not only connected to children’s behavior but also parents’. After all, simply punish them physically can’t make them easier to understand what exact the mistake they make because they only know it’s wrong but don’t know why it is wrong. Howev er, although it takes more time, if you explain to them why they do is wrong and what bad results they may cause instead of punish them, then it would be easier to make them understand this mistake can not be done again without making an awkward atmosphere in the family.Finally, to let the children know what is right and what is wrong, I think the best way for them is to experience and judge by themselves. Like I mentioned above, the most important principle is let them know why it’s wrong. Once they find out, then their brain will naturally tell them not to do it before they get hurt (no matter by themselves or parents). For instance, even you strongly warned your children don’t get too close to the fire, they still want to touch and feel it what it is. But once they suffer from the pain of burning, I assure you they don’t dare to do it again on purpose.To make a conclusion, I think physical punishment is not the best way to train children. Although it is fast and effective sometimes, you will never know what consequences it may bring in the future. After all, compared to the bad relationship and many problems it may cause, the long time it takes to teach a child in a liberal and gentle way seems very worthy.