This is a heat transfer problme.

Prove that Nu=4.36 for fully-developed laminar flow in a tube subject to a constant surface heat flux boundary condition.

This was posted before but it was a bit unclear, thanks!

What is a national interest? What kinds of national interests are there? What is a vital interest, and why is the boundary between vital and less than vital interest contentious but critical to questions of national security/

Write a program to solve the boundary value problem ? ′′ = ? ′ + 2? + cos ? for ? ? [0, ?/2] with ?( 0) = 0.3, ?( ?/ 2) = 0.1. Check your numerical solution with actual using necessary plot.(MATLAB)

Let f(x, y) =x^2+ 3y^2−2x−12y+ 13 on the domain A given by the triangular region with vertices (0,0),(0,6), and (2,0).

Find the maximum of f on the boundary of A.

Find the Green's function for each of the following problem, and determine
the solution of each of the following boundary-value problem:
y" + 4y = e^x
y(0) = 0
y'(1) = 0

1. Define the attributes listed below for a toaster, and provide a reasonable goal that would motivate analyzing the systems.
   • System boundary
   • Inputs
   • Outputs
   • Sub-systems
   • Interconnections (in a graphical format)
   • System order

Osborn Reynolds discovered that the flow regime depends mainly on the ratio of the inertia forces to viscous forces in the fluid. With your own understanding and justification, analyze the effects of frictional factor to the boundary layer.

Discuss the major components of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Corporate Governance?

Describe the internal control principle of “Risk Assessment” as presented in COSO’s 2013 Framework, SOX 2002 Sections 404 & 302, and PCAOB’s AS 5.

Compare the internal control effectiveness of the Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by COSO, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 404 “Internal Control over Financial Reporting Requirements”, and PCAOB’s AS 5 “an Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is integrating with an Audit of Financial Statements.”

FAMILY BUSINESS DYNAMICS

Thomas Sages looked stern and preoccupied upon his return from the funeral of his friend David’s wife,
Laura. When David died a few years earlier, the shock was great for Thomas, and this new loss revived
the wound.
David had been Thomas’ closest friend since they were young; he also was his business associate –
contributing 10% of the business equity when Thomas started the expansion of his supermarket chain.
And the ties were further strengthened when David and Laura’s son married Thomas’ daughter.
As Thomas’ thoughts wandered, he found himself thinking about the future of the business he had so
successfully built. Two of his children worked in the business, and he felt rather comfortable with their
ability to lead it forward – even though he had occasional disagreements with them about new
developments. His concern, revived by the funeral, was more about the transfer of his ownership stake.
He had written a will many years ago, and he thought that he should revisit it.
The high quality grocery store that Thomas launched in 1954 had quickly developed into a very
successful supermarket chain thanks to his entrepreneurial drive. While his son Louis, born from a first
marriage, had never been included in the business, the three children from his second marriage had all

of the consumer credit division and Timothy of the supermarket operations. Their older brother Charles,
however, had left the business after some tension. When his children joined the business, Thomas gave
each of them 5% equity, to link the responsibility of ownership to that of management. His wife Martina,
his friend David, and a fund for the managers, each owned 10% of the capital.
David’s shares had gone to his only son David Jr who was married to Caroline. Thomas wondered how
he should transfer his own shares, which represented 55% of capital. One of his first questions was
whether or not to link ownership and leadership of the business: Caroline and Timothy would probably
not wish to deal with a “sleeping partner” such as Charles, especially given the fact that Charles had left
the business with some bitterness. An option would be to give Charles some real estate, and to give
shares to the other two. Splitting the real estate from the operations had been done by other family
businesses for similar purposes. Maybe Charles should even be encouraged to trade his 5% stake against
some real estate. Thomas then wondered if the business should be further split: real estate to Charles,
“bank” to Caroline, supermarket operations to Timothy. However, the fact that David Jnr. (Caroline’s
husband) owned 10% of the shares, and that the management fund also owned 10% of the shares
meant that the matter needed to be closely examined. At this point, Thomas also realised that he
needed to better understand the consequences of the latest inheritance laws – they had recently
changed and he was not sure what his wife Martina should receive should he die before her. He also
needed to think about Louis, his elder son, who never received shares from the business but was
entitled to a share of the inheritance. Their relationship had been distant for many years, but they had
grown closer recently and Thomas wanted Louis to be part of the plan. Thomas decided that he needed
to discuss these issues with his trusted advisor, and picked up the phone.

1. Describe the how successful Thomas manage the family business and what options should Thomas
consider when planning for ownership succession.

2. Evaluate in how the best practices implemented by the second generation entrepreneurs including
high quality were influence the business. Also State your personal experience and tailored estate
planning advice.

3. Explain what advice/guidance have you found useful or pitfalls that you have experienced through
this case.