18525 research outputs found
Sort by
Improving torque distribution of the Baja car\u27s drive shaft
Get PDFThis honors thesis analyzes torque variation in the drive shaft system of the Baja SAE vehicle, with a focus on the effects of universal joint (U-joint) geometry and phasing in an inherited and new drive shaft design. The original drivetrain was inherited from a previous team and affected the seat placement that did not comply with the Baja SAE rules. This resulted in a redesign of the drive shaft and evaluation of both the inherited and redesigned configurations’ performance. An initial experiment was created and attempted to analyze the torque variation in the drive shaft, however, there were time constraints that limited prototyping and running trials. A simulation-based method was then attempted, but was insufficient in providing needed torque measurements on the system. A MATLAB-based analytical model was ultimately used to simulate U-joint behavior and calculate torque ratios and angular displacement error. The inherited driveshaft showed high torque fluctuation and angle error when compared to the redesigned configuration. The redesigned configuration showed improved performance with lower torque fluctuation and reduced angular error. These results further validate the design decisions made to optimize the drivetrain for future performance
Developing a guideline and feasibility tool for highway infrastructure readiness for autonomous vehicles
No full textAutonomous Vehicles (AVs) are one of the advanced technologies that is being developed, and infrastructure modifications supporting AVs will be the next major research that is needed. A systematic literature review methodology is used to explore key parameters needed for implementation of AVs. The key parameters are analyzed against economic implications, costs and projected benefits of the integration of Level 4 and Level 5 AVs into the highway system, offering a nuanced understanding of deployment of AV technologies. The research aims at developing a guideline and framework for highway infrastructure readiness for AVs, a toolbox for policy makers and government agencies to use. Infrastructure cost models and readiness assessments of implementation of AVs on highways indicated that cost-benefit analysis is a good measure to understand economic impacts of the implementation. The key parameters, cost models and readiness assessments, are studied separately, focusing on isolated technological assessments at a time or specific infrastructural planning. This study addresses these gaps with mixed-method framework that combines systematic parameter identification with cost-benefit analysis, integrating the parameters like infrastructure modification requirements, consumer acceptance, and policy implementation costs into a unified framework for highway-based AV deployment. The study uses cost-benefit analysis framework with the technology readiness assessment model to develop a guideline and evaluation framework to combine the research findings of all the parameters and propose a formula to provide quantified cost-benefit analysis tool. The development of this framework evaluates from concept development to operational deployment. The integration of AVs into the existing transportation framework is a multifaceted endeavor that demands attention to infrastructure modifications, policy implications, and consumer perceptions. The proposed framework operationalizes these parameters into a normalized, comparative formula that enables quantitative evaluation of AV-related infrastructure investment scenarios. This framework assesses the readiness of AVs infrastructure, integrating economic and policy costs with readiness stages by aligning capital investments, operational dependencies and regulatory and consumer readiness. The framework supports a phased, evidence-based evaluation of AV infrastructure both economically and technologically allowing policymakers to prioritize investments based on both cost-effectiveness and deployment maturity
Rukeyser at Westgate Prison in Seoul
No full textMuriel Rukeyser, 1975, at the Westgate Prison in Seoul, Korea
Letter with editorial notes from Rukeyser to Kertesz, December 20 1977
No full textOriginal, typewritten letter, dated December 20th, 1977. The letter is from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Rukeyser thanks Louise for her letter. She will be glad to see Louise on January 2nd for as long as she can manage. Muriel hopes that Louise’s husband will come in for a drink afterwards, Muriel doesn’t want to make dinner plans, but wants to meet Louise a little bit the next day at 50th Street. Rukeyser had written to the FBI for her dossier, and she hopes it will arrive in time for their meeting. Rukeyser ends the letter by wishing Louise a Happy New Year
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, April 15 1975
No full textAn original, typewritten letter, dated April 15th, 1975. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise states that it has been wonderful talking with Rukeyser on the telephone. Louise has been intensely involved with Rukeyser’s work, during her hours of reading and even throughout the day when she watches her children do chores. Louise sent Rukeyser samples of her writing. The book reviews are from Northampton’s Daily Hampshire Gazette. The long article, which Louise doesn’t expect Rukeyser to read fully or even send back to her, is intended to show that she can do scholarly work. It is an excerpt from her dissertation. Louise does not apologize for it, but explains that the style is often stiff because she was bent on academic approbation. The work that Louise proposes to do on Rukeyser’s writings will be thorough and documented, but in a style that reflects her deep personal response to her work. Louise also sent Rukeyser Stephen Stepanchev’s review of Waterlily Fire. The bibliography had misled Louise into thinking it was a long study of Waterlily Fire. Once again, this gives Louise evidence of the need for a substantial study of Rukeyser\u27s writings. Louise wrote to New York University trying to get hold of M.L. Rosenthal’s 1949 thesis entitled “Chief Poets of the American Depression: Contributions of Kenneth Fearing, Horace Gregory, and Muriel Rukeyser to Contemporary American Poetry.” Louise also asks Muriel Rukeyser to send her a copy of American Poetry Review in which her work is featured in an article. Louise will send it back to Rukeyser. Louise ends the letter by thanking Rukeyser for her encouraging telephone calls. Louise wants to give her very best to the proposed study because she admires Rukeyser’s work and her vision, and also due to the fact that Rukeyser’s response has heightened her enthusiasm
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, September 16 1976
No full textAn original typewritten letter [perhaps a draft], dated September 16th, 1976. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise begins the letter by saying that she hurried to answer Rukeyser’s letter sent on September 11th. Louise confirms that all passages in her manuscript about Rukeyser’s son and his birth will be sent to him, whenever Rukeyser wished, and that none of the passages will be published without his consent. Louise thanks Rukeyser for answering her questions. Louise would like to discuss some of them further, to take up the ones that she sent Rukeyser at the beginning of the summer, and to talk with her about the manuscript. Louise asks when Rukeyser would prefer for Louise to come and see her. Her Christmas vacation is December 18th to January 6th. Her Thanksgiving recess is November 24th to November 28th. Louise has a long weekend from Saturday evening, October 16th to Monday evening on October 18th, or she could come to see Muriel on any Saturday or Sunday. Her preference is Christmastime, because she will have several days without class preparations then. However, Louise could come before Christmas if Rukeyser wishes. Rukeyser only has to let Louise know and she will make plans. Some sections of the letter are crossed out, with additional writing included
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, June 17 1977
No full textOriginal typewritten letter, dated June 17th, 1977. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise hopes Rukeyser is feeling well, and tells her that she mailed her a few pages on The Traces of Thomas Hariot, and that she is writing now to ask a few questions about those pages. Indiana University Press, who had Louise’s manuscript since early February, told Louise that the editor in charge went on vacation, and that the manuscript is in the hands of two or more experts. Louise will let Rukeyser know if she hears anything from them. Louise is now working on a conclusion to the manuscript which involves reading a critic on the so-called “new poetry” of postmodernism,” the particular sensibility which is unlike that of “modernism.” The more Louise reads, the more she sees that Rukeyser was writing this ”new poetry” even in her first volumes. When critics were complaining in the Forties that Rukeyser wasn’t ironic, they were measuring her works by standards that Rukeyser had found unsatisfactory even before Olson, Duncan, and Snynder, who are poets now spoken of as the first “postmoderns.” Louise had said something like that already, but she thinks she would like to close with a more pointed discussion of these matters, using critical terms which are now being applied. The back page of the letter is a course selection sheet
Handwritten notes
No full textOne page of original, handwritten notes, naming different people that Rukeyser knew: Rebecca Pitts, Berenice Abbott, May Sarton, Jane Cooper, Marie Welch
Letter from Jane Cooper to Kertesz, November 7
No full textDated November 7th. While no year is mentioned, the letter was obviously written in 1978. A handwritten letter from Jane Cooper to Louise Kertesz. Cooper talks about a Writer’s Conference: A Day in Honor of Muriel Rukeyser [December 9, 1978 at Sarah Lawrence University] that she hopes Kertesz will attend. Cooper regrets not having any photographs of Muriel. The letter is underlined in red (most likely by LK) in some places
Letter from Rukeyser to Kertesz with responses to Kertesz\u27s questions
No full textOriginal typewritten three-page letter, undated, of Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz, answering sixteen questions. Rukeyser\u27s answers are wide-ranging. She mentions a poem On Face, which may have been inspired by a Paul Eluard poem: On Face was turned in part into Breaking Open. The rest of it is not yet written or not yet published. In answer to a question about her involvement in the publication of Erika Mann\u27s book School for Barbarians: Education Under The Nazis, she clarifies that I rewrote the rough English version ... The published version was mine. It was a job for which I got 200 dollars. She also addresses the Partisan Review debacle and suggests that Kertesz ask the editors directly why it [her poem Wake Island ] was singled out for abusive criticism. In another answer, she mentions a wonderful teacher of science who was also the teacher of Frank Oppenheimer, with whom I am working at the Exploratorium ...The Exploratorium is a museum of perception. I have looked on the political questions and the scientific questions you ask, as matters of perception, the way one reaches the world, and the way one reaches onself. Rukeyser ends her letter by responding to question 16 with the following words: I\u27ll be willing to discuss with you almost anything you ask