Work Breakdown Schedule Aaron 145 hrs Matt 148 hrs 1.1 Review General Air Foil Theory 6 hrs 1.1 Review General Air Foil Theory 6 hrs 1.2 Preliminary Senior Design Coordinator Meetings 2 hrs 1.2 Preliminary Senior Design Coordinator Meetings 2 hrs 1.3 Examine Existing RC Planes 12 hrs 1.3 Examine Existing RC Planes 12 hrs 1.4.1 Select Competition Class 10 hrs 1.4.1 Select Competition Class 10 hrs 10 hrs 1.4.2 Review Selected Class Requirements 10 hrs 2.1.1 Review Existing Wing Designs 8 hrs 2.2.1 Existing Technology Review 9 hrs 2.1.2 Select Basic Wing Layout 9 hrs 2.2.2 Theoretical Propeller Design 9 hrs 2.1.3 Theoretical Design of Wing 18 hrs 2.2.3 Computer Aided Propeller Analysis 9 hrs 2.1.4 Computer Aided Wing Analysis 14 hrs 2.2.4 Physical Modeling 9 hrs 2.1.5 Physical Modeling 10 hrs 2.3.1 Aerodynamic Review 6 hrs 3.1 Combine Wing, Propeller, Fuselage Models 2 hrs 2.3.2 Theoretical Fuselage Design 8 hrs 3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing 2 hrs 2.3.3 Computer Aided Fuselage Design 6 hrs 3.3 Analyze Results 1 hr 2.3.4 Physical Modeling 4 hrs 4.1.1 Project Proposal 4 hrs 3.1 Combine Wing, Propeller, Fuselage Models 2 hrs 4.1.2 Semester Report 14 hrs 3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing 2 hrs 4.2.1 Project Proposal 4 hrs 3.3 Analyze Results 1 hr 4.2.2 Semester Report Brett 19 hrs 148 hrs 4.1.1 Project Proposal 4 hrs 4.1.2 Semester Report 14 hrs 1.1 Review General Air Foil Theory 6 hrs 4.2.1 Project Proposal 6 hrs 1.2 Preliminary Senior Design Coordinator Meetings 2 hrs 4.2.2 Semester Report 19 hrs 1.3 Examine Existing RC Planes 12 hrs Tzvee 145 hrs 1.4.1 Select Competition Class 10 hrs 1.1 Review General Air Foil Theory 6 hrs 1.4.2 Review Selected Class Requirements 10 hrs 1.2 Preliminary Senior Design Coordinator Meetings 2 hrs 2.2.1 Existing Technology Review 9 hrs 1.3 Examine Existing RC Planes 12 hrs 2.2.2 Theoretical Propeller Design 9 hrs 1.4.1 Select Competition Class 10 hrs 2.2.3 Computer Aided Propeller Analysis 9 hrs 1.4.2 Review Selected Class Requirements 10 hrs 2.2.4 Physical Modeling 9 hrs 1.5 Establish Requirements Matrix 4 hrs 2.3.1 Aerodynamic Review 6 hrs 2.1.1 Review Existing Wing Designs 8 hrs 2.1.2 Select Basic Wing Layout 9 hrs 2.3.2 Theoretical Fuselage Design 8 hrs 2.1.3 Theoretical Design of Wing 18 hrs 2.3.3 Computer Aided Fuselage Design 6 hrs 2.1.4 Computer Aided Wing Analysis 14 hrs 2.3.4 Physical Modeling 4 hrs 2.1.5 Physical Modeling 10 hrs 3.1 Combine Wing, Propeller, Fuselage Models 2 hrs 3.1 Combine Wing, Propeller, Fuselage Models 2 hrs 3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing 2 hrs 3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing 2 hrs 3.3 Analyze Results 1 hr 3.3 Analyze Results 1 hr 4.1.1 Project Proposal 4 hrs 4.1.1 Project Proposal 4 hrs 4.1.2 Semester Report 14 hrs 4.1.2 Semester Report 14 hrs 4.2.1 Project Proposal 6 hrs 4.2.1 Project Proposal 0 hrs 4.2.2 Semester Report 19 hrs 4.2.2 Semester Report 19 hrs 1.4.2 Review Selected Class Requirements
View full slide show




Course Description Definitions Prefix Course Name Hours BIO 1007 Anatomy & Physiology I 4 Course Description Definitions BIO Course Prefix 1007 Course Number 4 hrs Number of credit hours earned in this course Anatomy & Physiology Course Title Prerequisite: None Courses which must be taken before taking this class IAI:L1 904L This code means that this course is a part of the Illinois Articulation Initiative and meets a portion of General Education Core Curriculum requirements. back | home | next
View full slide show




CCR (Corners of Circumscribing Coordinate Rectangle) (rnd-f, rnd-g, then lin-d) f=MinVecX≡(minXx1..minXxn) g≡MaxVecX≡(maxXx1..maxXxn), d≡(g-f)/|g-f| Sequence thru main diagonal pairs, {f, g} lexicographically. For each, create d. Notes: No calculation required to find f and g (assuming f1=MnVec RnGp>4 none start  g1=MxVec RnGp>4 Sub 0 7 vir18... Clus1 1 47 ver30 Sub 0 53 ver49.. Clus2 0 74 set14 SubClus1 Lin>4 none f2=0001 RnGp>4 none CCR-1. Do SpS((x-f)o(x-f)) round gap analysis CCR-2. Do SpS((x-g)o(x-g)) rnd gap analysis. CCR-3. Do SpS((xod)) linear gap analysis. SubCluster2 g2=1110 RnGp>4 none This ends SubClus2 = 47 setosa only Lin>4 none f1=0000 RnGp>4 none g1=1111 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f3=0010 RnGp>4 none f2=0001 RnGp>4 none g2=1110 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none Lin>4 none f3=0010 RnGp>4 none g3=1101 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f4=0011 RnGp>4 none f4=0011 RnGp>4 none g4=1100 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f5=0100 RnGp>4 none g5=1011 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none g3=1101 RnGp>4 none g4=1100 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f5=0100 RnGp>4 none g5=1011 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f6=0101 RnGp>4 none g6=1010 RnGp>4 none f6=0101 RnGp>4 1 19 set26 0 28 ver49 0 31 set42 0 31 ver8 0 32 set36 0 32 ver44 1 35 ver11 0 41 ver13 ver49 0.0 19.8 3.9 21.3 3.9 7.2 Lin>4 none f7=0110 RnGp>4 none g7=1001 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f8=0111 RnGp>4 none g8=1000 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f7=0110 RnGp>4 1 28 ver13 0 33 vir49 f8=0111 RnGp>4 none set42 ver8 19.8 3.9 0.0 21.6 21.6 0.0 10.4 23.9 21.8 1.4 23.8 4.6 set36 ver44 ver11 21.3 3.9 7.2 10.4 21.8 23.8 23.9 1.4 4.6 0.0 24.2 27.1 24.2 0.0 3.6 27.1 3.6 0.0 g6=1010 RnGp>4 none g7=1001 RnGp>4 none g8=1000 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none Lin>4 none Lin>4 none MaxVecX and MinVecX have been calculated and residualized when PTreeSetX was captured.) 3. (and 2.?) may be unproductive in finding new subclusters (either because 1 finds almost all or because 2 and/or 3 find the same ones) and could be skipped (very likely if dimension is high, since the main diagonal corners are typically far from X, in a high dimensional vector space and thus the radii of a round gap is large and large radii rnd gaps are near linear, suggesting a will find all the subclusters that b and c would find. 2. good!, else setosa/versicolor+virginica are not separated! 3. is unproductive, suggesting productive to calculate 1., 2. but having done that, 3. will probably not be productive. Next consider only 3. to see if it is as productive as 1.+2. Subc2.1 ver49 ver8 ver44 ver11 CCR is as good as the combo (projection on d appears to be as accurate as the combination of square length of f and of g). This is probably because the round gaps (centered at the corners) are nearly linear by the time they get to the set X itself. To compare the time costs, we note: Combo (p-x)o(p-x) = pop + xox2xop = pop + k=1..nxk2 + k=1..n(-2pk)xk has n multiplications in the second term, n scalar multiplications and n additions in the third term. For both p=f and p=g, then, it takes 2n multiplications, 2n scalar multiplications and 2n additions. For CCR, xod = k=1..n(dk)xk involves n scalar mults and n additions. It appears to be cheaper (timewise) This ends SubClus1 = 95 ver and vir samples only
View full slide show




CCR(fgd) (Corners of Circumscribing Coordinate Rectangle) f1=minVecX≡(minXx1..minXxn) (0000) g1=MaxVecX≡(MaxXx1..MaxXxn) (1111), d=(g-f)/|g-f| Sequence thru main diagonal pairs, {f, g} lexicographically. For each, create d. f1=MnVec RnGp>4 none start  g1=MxVec RnGp>4 Sub 0 7 vir18... Clus1 1 47 ver30 Sub 0 53 ver49.. Clus2 0 74 set14 SubClus1 Lin>4 none f2=0001 RnGp>4 none CCR(f) Do SpS((x-f)o(x-f)) round gap analysis CCR(g) Do SpS((x-g)o(x-g)) round gap analysis. CCR(d) Do SpS((xod)) linear gap analysis. Notes: No calculation required to find f and g (assuming MaxVecX and minVecX have been calculated and residualized when PTreeSetX was captured.) SubCluster2 g2=1110 RnGp>4 none This ends SubClus2 = 47 setosa only Lin>4 none f1=0000 RnGp>4 none g1=1111 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f3=0010 RnGp>4 none f2=0001 RnGp>4 none g2=1110 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none Lin>4 none f3=0010 RnGp>4 none g3=1101 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f4=0011 RnGp>4 none f4=0011 RnGp>4 none g4=1100 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f5=0100 RnGp>4 none g5=1011 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none If the dimension is high, since the main diagonal corners are liekly far from X and thus the large radii make the round gaps nearly linear. g3=1101 RnGp>4 none g4=1100 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f5=0100 RnGp>4 none g5=1011 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f6=0101 RnGp>4 none g6=1010 RnGp>4 none f6=0101 RnGp>4 1 19 set26 0 28 ver49 0 31 set42 0 31 ver8 0 32 set36 0 32 ver44 1 35 ver11 0 41 ver13 ver49 0.0 19.8 3.9 21.3 3.9 7.2 Lin>4 none f7=0110 RnGp>4 none g7=1001 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none f8=0111 RnGp>4 none f7=0110 RnGp>4 1 28 ver13 0 33 vir49 f8=0111 RnGp>4 none set42 ver8 19.8 3.9 0.0 21.6 21.6 0.0 10.4 23.9 21.8 1.4 23.8 4.6 g6=1010 RnGp>4 none g7=1001 RnGp>4 none g8=1000 RnGp>4 none g8=1000 RnGp>4 none Lin>4 none set36 ver44 ver11 21.3 3.9 7.2 10.4 21.8 23.8 23.9 1.4 4.6 0.0 24.2 27.1 24.2 0.0 3.6 27.1 3.6 0.0 This ends SubClus1 = 95 ver and vir samples only Lin>4 none Lin>4 none Lin>4 none Subc2.1 ver49 ver8 ver44 ver11
View full slide show




Other Branch Prediction Algorithms Problem 16.3 Taken Not taken Not taken Part a Predict taken Taken Not taken Predict taken again Taken Part b Predict taken Taken Taken Not taken Predict not taken Not taken Taken Predict taken again Taken Predict not taken again Not taken Taken Predict not taken Not taken Predict not taken again Not taken Taken Not taken Not taken Fig. 16.6 Predict taken Taken Not taken Predict taken again Taken Predict not taken Not taken Predict not taken again Taken   Computer Architecture, Data Path and Control Slide 71
View full slide show




Planning & Building Your Class Schedule How do I read the course descriptions in the college catalog? The course descriptions provide you with basic information about the topics covered in each course. Pay close attention to the course prefix, number, credit hours, course title, prerequisites, co-requisites, content description, and contact hours.Check out the following course description: Prefix BIO 1007 Course Name Anatomy & Physiology I Hours 4 This course involves an introductory study of the structure and function of the human body. A study of cytology, histology and five organ systems (integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, and endocrine) illustrates the relationships between structures and their functions. Laboratory exercises include cat dissection, cadaver demonstration and other materials. Prerequisite: none, but BIO 1200 is recommended for students with a limited science background. IAI:L1 904L back | home | next
View full slide show




A. S. Degree - 9 credit hours of Communications - 3 credit hours of Mathematics -10 credit hours of Life and Physical Science - 9 credit hours of Humanities and Fine Arts - 6 credit hours of Global Appreciation (can be fulfilled by completing appropriate courses in other general education categories) - 9 credit hours of Social and Behavioral Sciences - 2 credit hours of Health and Wellness A.A. Degree - 9 credit hours of Communications - 3 credit hours of Mathematics - 7 credit hours of Life and Physical Science - 12 credit hours of Humanities and Fine Arts - 6 credit hours of Global Appreciation (can be fulfilled by completing appropriate courses in other general education categories) - 9 credit hours of Social and Behavioral Sciences - 2 credit hours of Health and Wellness back | home | next
View full slide show




Carbapenem Activity Against Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumanii complex (ACBC) in an In Vitro Pharmacokinetic Bacteremia Model (PKM) Eric G Sahloff, Pharm.D., Diane M. Cappelletty, Pharm.D., & Steven J. Martin, Pharm.D., BCPS, FCCM College of Pharmacy, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, Ohio 43606 ABSTRACT Our ICU has experienced an outbreak of multi-drug resistant AC, with isolates susceptible only to carbapenems and aminoglycosides. Imipenem (IC) has become an empiric choice for therapy in nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia in our ICU. Meropenem (M) has become a financially attractive option to IC. The purpose of this study was to compare the bactericidal effects of IC to M against AC clinical isolates using an in vitro PKM. Four AC clinical isolates were tested in a PKM simulating M 1 g q8 hrs and IC 500 mg q6 hrs over 48 hrs. All isolates were susceptible to M and IC with MICs of 1 g/ml and 0.25-0.5 g/ml, respectively. Samples were taken from the model at several time points over the 48 hrs to evaluate killing and PK. MIC and MBCs were determined at time 0, 24 hrs, and 48 hrs. The rates of bacterial killing and area under the bactericidal curves (AUBC) were compared. Isolates were screened for resistant subpopulations (RS) using antibiotic-containing medium at baseline, 24 and 48 hr. For M and IC, greater than 99.9% kill was seen by 3-4 hrs in 3/4 isolates,. However, regrowth occurred by 24 hours for all isolates against M. For IC, regrowth occurred in 2/4 isolates by 24 hours and between 30-48 hrs for the remaining 2 isolates. AUBC was lower (greater extent of kill) for IC in 3/4 isolates at 12, 24, and 48 hours. Low-level RS were identified at baseline, while high-level resistance was noted for regrowth at 48 hr. M and IC had similar rates of killing with both agents being bactericidal in 3/4 isolates. IC had superior duration of bacterial killing compared to M against AC. Despite initial bactericidal activity, significant regrowth occurred for all isolates against both drugs by 48 hours. This suggests carbapenem monotherapy may select for resistant populations or induce resistance and coul lead to potential drug failure. The presence of resistant subpopulations may support the use of combination therapy in AC infections. Each drug was tested alone against each isolate. Drug was administered into the model at desired peak concentrations through an access port. Fresh sterile medium pumped into and drug-containing medium flows out of the model at a rate simulating the half-life achieved by human pharmacokinetics. All were run in duplicate at 37o C. Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Resistance Determinations Serial samples (1.0 ml) were drawn to measure colony counts and drug concentrations To prevent antibiotic carryover, samples were centrifuged, the supernatant removed, and the bacteria resuspended in 1 ml normal saline. Samples were plated by spiral plating techniques. Antibiotic-containing agar plates at 2x and 4x MIC were evaluated at 24 and 48 hrs to detect and quantify the emergence of resistance. Endopoints were rate and extent of killing, and the development and frequency of resistance (regrowth). MIC/MBCs were performed on any regrowth for both agents to determine if resistance was drugor class-specific. Drug concentrations will be determined by bioassay. Isolate 9 Isolate 9 8 Imipenem Run 1A Imipenem Run 2A Imipenem Run 1B Imipenem Run 2B 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 Isolate 4 7 9 10 Drug Meropenem Imipenem Meropenem Imipenem Meropenem Imipenem Meropenem Imipenem Meropenem Run 1B Meropenem Run 2B 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 1224 30 36 42 0 48 Time (hrs) Meropenem 8 2 4 6 8 10 1224 30 36 42 48 Time (hrs) RESULTS Resistant Subpopulations (% of Total Population 24 hr 48 hr 2x MIC 4x MIC 2x MIC 4x MIC < 0.01 NG NR <0.01 NG NG <0.01 NG <0.01 <0.01 NR <0.01 <0.01 NG <0.01 NG 0.14 <0.01 NR <0.01 NG NG <0.01 NG <0.01 NG NR <0.01 <0.01 NG NR <0.01 Meropenem Run 2A 8 7 Isolate 10 Table 1. Frequency of Resistant Subpopulations Meropenem Run 1A Imipenem 7 6 5 MIC/MBC were unchanged from baseline when evaluated from samples directly from the model or from growth on drug-free agar at 24 and 48 hr wfor Isolates 9 and 10 for both M and IC No growth was noted on antibioticcontaining medium at 2x or 4x MICs for Isolates 9 or 10 at 24 or 48 hrs. 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 1224 Time (hrs) 30 36 42 48
View full slide show




Design TA Time Commitment TA Student Load Hourly Breakdown 10 hrs/week 1 section 38 students max Hrs in class/week = 3 Office Hours = 1 Resource Room Hours = 1 Weekly Meeting = 1 Scheduled time total = 6 hrs Open time = 4 hrs 15 hrs/week 2 sections 76 students max Hrs in class/week = 6 Office Hours = 1 Resource Room Hours = 1 Weekly Meeting = 1 Scheduled time total = 9 hrs Open time = 6 hrs 20 hrs/week 3 sections 114 students max Hrs in class/week = 9 Office Hours = 1 Resource Room Hours = 1 Weekly Meeting = 1 Scheduled time total = 12 hrs Open time = 8 hrs A D D I E
View full slide show