Deep Space Network Antenna Logic Controller

The Antenna Logic Controller (ALC) software controls and monitors the motion control equipment of the 4,000-metric-ton structure of the Deep Space Network 70-meter antenna. This program coordinates the control of 42 hydraulic pumps, while monitoring several interlocks for personnel and equipment safety. Remote operation of the ALC runs via the Antenna Monitor & Control (AMC) computer, which orchestrates the tracking functions of the entire antenna. This software provides a graphical user interface for local control, monitoring, and identification of faults as well as, at a high level, providing for the digital control of the axis brakes so that the servo of the AMC may control the motion of the antenna. Specific functions of the ALC also include routines for startup in cold weather, controlled shutdown for both normal and fault situations, and pump switching on failure. The increased monitoring, the ability to trend key performance characteristics, the improved fault detection and recovery, the centralization of all control at a single panel, and the simplification of the user interface have all reduced the required workforce to run 70-meter antennas. The ALC also increases the antenna availability by reducing the time required to start up the antenna, to diagnose faults, and by providing additional insight into the performance of key parameters that aid in preventive maintenance to avoid key element failure. The ALC User Display (AUD) is a graphical user interface with hierarchical display structure, which provides high-level status information to the operation of the ALC, as well as detailed information for virtually all aspects of the ALC via drill-down displays. The operational status of an item, be it a function or assembly, is shown in the higher-level display. By pressing the item on the display screen, a new screen opens to show more detail of the function/assembly. Navigation tools and the map button allow immediate access to all screens

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

Roof Robot 3

In 2006 through 2008 two teams of students developed an all-wheel drive robot capable of traversing a variety of roof geometries while visually displaying roof conditions for a sponsor. Our team performed numerous enhancements on the previous years' designs in order to grant the robot superior traction as well as an improved range and mobility, allowing the robot to operate over the crest of a roof. A new microcontroller and Wi-Fi camera were implemented to allow for two way communication between the robot and a computer, and to allow for a reliable video feed. A single man operable ascender system was designed that is able to be transported in a minivan and able to allow the robot access to a second story roof