The Stewardship Model of Necessity

The current understanding of the necessity defense to trespass to property in American law stems from a simple—or perhaps simplistic—balancing of rights. Based in the individualistic understanding of property as a right against the world that creates an obligation for others, necessity pits the interloper’s right to life, liberty, or property against the property owner’s right. Although feasible in the extremes, dueling rights leads to an unwieldy judicial task, discouraging advocates from alleging the privilege and discouraging judges from recognizing the privilege. Overall, the right to exclude has become more and more the libertarian vision of a right to be left alone, isolated from our society. A decisional theory founded in an Aristotelian sense of property forms a stronger foundation to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the defense. Aristotle, as glossed by philosophers of the Middle Ages, understood private property ownership to be distinct from use. While there was a presumption of exclusion from the property necessary for the good of the home, the owner only had preferential usage of all extraneous goods; these privately owned goods were for public use. Reconceptualizing the right to exclude as rebuttable by a claim of use for the common good founds private necessity anew on a more sustainable and easily applicable communitarian judicial theory. After developing the contrasting decisional theories as applied to necessity, this Note will also speculate on possible implications of extending this decisional theory to takings and contemporary debates on traditional knowledge. * * * “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall . . . [yet my neighbor] will not go behind his father’s saying . . . He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’

A study of certin microorganisms of soil origin exhibiting anti-microbial properties

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1952 G71Master of Scienc

Optimization and Redesign of a Dual Rotary Cutter

This design report records the actions taken by the Spin to Win team to optimize and redesign a cutter assembly in a dual rotary sheeter, as well as design a gear reduction in the same assembly. The optimization and redesign of the cutter system focuses on two main factors, inertia and torsional stiffness. The sponsor for this project is MAXSON Automatic Machinery. Wear and tear on a machine and its parts could be costly or even jeopardize the integrity of the system. Spin to Win came up with a redesign that can theoretically decrease the inertia by up to 40% and grant an increase of the torsional stiffness of the cutter assembly. The gear reduction will change the motor that can be used to propel the system, including a 1.8 : 1 reduction allowing for a smaller motor, thus lowering the cost of the entire assembly. By lowering the inertia and increasing the stiffness of the cutter system MAXSON could see longer part life and less wear as well as lower overall system costs. The optimization and redesign solution incorporates a wheel and spoke design to add torsional stiffness and decrease inertia. The spokes are inserted along the cutter on an inner shaft and are connected to the outer shell to give the design the added stiffness in the direction of rotation. A prototype was created to show the ease of assembly of the redesign and the apparent decrease in inertia from the current cutter design. The prototype has design considerations to accommodate some of the existing hardware, so that the system integrates into the sheeter system seamlessly. The design created by Spin to Win suffered in terms of manufacturability, and a simplified design was created for testing. The tests themselves encountered unexpected difficulties flowing to the design of the tests for the available equipment. In the end, the viability of the design was not definitively proved but was suggested, paving the way for further work

Comparing energy and water use of aqueous and gas‐based metalworking fluids

Gas‐based metalworking fluids (MWFs) have been proposed as alternative coolants and lubricants in machining operations to mitigate concerns surrounding water use and pollution, industrial hygiene, occupational health, and performance limitations associated with water‐based (aqueous) MWFs that are ubiquitously used in the metals manufacturing industry. This study compares the primary energy and water use associated with the consumptive use, delivery, and disposal of aqueous MWFs with three gas‐based MWFs in the literature—minimum quantity lubricant‐in‐compressed air (MQL), liquid/gaseous N2, and liquid/supercritical CO2. The comparison accounts for reported differences in machining performance in peer‐reviewed experimental studies across several machining processes and materials. The analysis shows that despite the reported improvement in tool life with N2 and CO2‐based MWFs, the electricity‐ and water‐intensive separation and purification processes for N2 and CO2 lead to their higher primary energy and water use per volume of material machined relative to water‐based MWFs. Although MQL is found to have lower primary energy use, significant consumptive water use associated with the vegetable oil commonly used with this MWF leads to higher overall water use than aqueous MWF, which is operated in a recirculative system. Gas‐based MWFs thus shift the water use upstream of the manufacturing plant. Primary energy and water use of gas‐based MWFs could be reduced by focusing on achieving higher material removal rates and throughput compared to aqueous MWF instead of solely targeting improvements in tool life. Additionally, the consumptive use of CO2 and N2 MWFs could be minimized by optimizing their flow rates and delivery to precisely meet the cooling and lubrication needs of specific machining processes instead of flooding the tool and workpiece with these gases. This article met the requirements for a gold–gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163496/3/jiec12992.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163496/2/jiec12992-sup-0001-SuppMat.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163496/1/jiec12992_am.pd