6,503 research outputs found

    In the Region, Performance Follows Goals: Maryland Exceeds Virginia in Contracts for Minority Firms

    No full text
    Adding to his other aticle on AA in today's WP, author notes that the success of AA programs has been seeting goals

    KOMPARASI METODE SISTEM PENDUKUNG KEPUTUSAN BERDASARKAN METODE WP, AHP-WP, ENTROPY-TOPSIS DALAM PENENTUAN JURUSAN

    Full text link
    The majors at SMK AR Rahma are still manual and Excel is only used to find the average score. While the number of students is around 140 students, so it takes a long time to determine the student's major. If the number of students in the SMK increases, the student's majoring will take longer which can cause inaccuracies. Based on this background, in this research the author tries to analyze the accuracy of the WP, AHP-WP, ENTROPY-TOPSIS methods in the majors of vocational students. So that it will be known which method is more accurate in producing student majors. In the process of managing students, data is needed in the form of report cards, academic test scores, majors test scores and health scores. The accuracy of the majors produced by the three methods is measured by comparing it to the majors produced manually by the school. The result of this research is that the alignment produced by the AHP-WP method is more accurate than the alignment produced by the other two methods. The accuracy results are 70.71% for the AHP-WP method, 64.29% for the WP method, and 51,43% for the ENTROPY-TOPSIS method. So that the AHP-WP method is the best method that can be recommended to schools in the case of majoring students at SMK AR Rahma Mandiri and then a majoring system can be made using the AHP-WP method

    Wp-1 reference cases of laminar and turbulent interactions

    No full text
    In order to be able to judge the effectiveness of transition induction in WP-2, reference flow cases were planned in WP-1. There are two obvious reference cases—a fully laminar interaction and a fully turbulent interaction. Here it should be explained that the terms “laminar” and “turbulent” interaction refer to the boundary layer state at the beginning of interaction only. There are two basic configurations of shock wave boundary layer interaction and these are a part of the TFAST project. One is the normal shock wave, which typically appears at the transonic wing and on the turbine cascade. The characteristic incipient separation Mach number range is about M = 1.2 in the case of a laminar boundary layer and about M = 1.32 in the case of turbulent boundary layer. The second typical flow case is the oblique shock wave reflection. The most characteristic case in European research is connected to the 6th FP IP HISAC project concerning a supersonic business jet. The design speed of this airplane is M = 1.6. Therefore the TFAST consortium decided to use this Mach number as the basic case. Pressure disturbance at this Mach number is not very high and can be compared to the disturbance of the normal shock at the incipient separation Mach number mentioned earlier. As mentioned earlier, shock reflection at M = 1.6 may be related to incipient separation. Therefore two additional test cases were planned with different Mach numbers. ITAM conducted an M = 1.5 test case, and TUD an M = 1.7 test case. These partners have also previously made very specialized and successful contributions to the UFAST project.Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.Aerodynamic
    corecore