Laajakaistaverkon topologian visualisointi

Viimeisten vuosien aikana laajakaistaoperaattoreiden laajakaistaverkot ovat nopeiden ja kiinteähintaisten laajakaistaliittymien johdosta kasvaneet suuriksi kokonaisuuksiksi. Kokonaisuuksia hallitaan erilaisilla verkonhallintatyökaluilla. Verkonhallintatyökalut sisältävät suuren määrän eri tasoista tietoa laitteista ja laitteiden välisistä suhteista. Kokonaisuuksien hahmottaminen ilman tiedoista rakennettua kuvaa on vaikeaa ja hidasta. Laajakaistaverkon topologian visualisoinnissa muodostetaan kuva laitteista ja niiden välisistä suhteista. Visualisoitua kuvaa voidaan käyttää osana verkonhallintatyökalua, jolloin käyttäjälle muodostuu nopeasti näkymä verkon laitteista ja rakenteesta eli topologiasta. Visualisoinnissa kuvan piirto-ongelma täytyy muuttaa graafin piirto-ongelmaksi. Graafin piirto-ongelmassa verkon rakennetta käsitellään graafina, joka mahdollistaa kuvan muodostamisen automaattisia piirtomenetelmiä hyväksikäyttäen. Halutunlainen ulkoasu kuvalle muodostetaan automaattisilla piirtomenetelmillä, joilla laitteiden ja laitteiden välisten suhteiden esitystapoja voidaan muuttaa. Esitystavoilla voidaan muuttaa esimerkiksi laitteiden muotoa, väriä ja kokoa. Esitystapojen lisäksi piirtomenetelmien tärkein tehtävä on laskea laitteiden sijaintien koordinaattien arvot, jotka loppujen lopuksi määräävät koko kuvan rakenteen. Koordinaattien arvot lasketaan piirtoalgoritmeilla, joista voimiin perustuvat algoritmit sopivat parhaiten laajakaistaverkkojen laitteiden sijaintien laskemiseen. Tämän diplomityön käytännön työssä toteutettiin laajakaistaverkon topologian visualisointityökalu.

Fluid flow and dispersion predictions in porous media by utilizing advanced numerical methods

Diplomityön tavoitteena oli tarkastella numeerisen virtauslaskennan avulla virtaukseen liittyviä ilmiöitä ja kaasun dispersiota. Diplomityön sisältö on jaettu viiteen osaan; johdantoon, teoriaan, katsaukseen virtauksen mallinnukseen huokoisessa materiaalissa liittyviin tutkimusselvityksiin, numeeriseen mallinnukseen sekä tulosten esittämiseen ja johtopäätöksiin. Diplomityön alussa kiinnitettiin huomiota erilaisiin kokeellisiin, numeerisiin ja teoreettisiin mallinnusmenetelmiin, joilla voidaan mallintaa virtausta huokoisessa materiaalissa. Kirjallisuusosassa tehtiin katsaus aikaisemmin julkaistuihin puoliempiirisiin ja empiirisiin tutkimusselvityksiin, jotka liittyvät huokoisen materiaalin aiheuttamaan painehäviöön. Numeerisessa virtauslaskenta osassa rakennettiin ja esitettiin huokoista materiaalia kuvaavat numeeriset mallit käyttäen kaupallista FLUENT -ohjelmistoa. Työn lopussa arvioitiin teorian, numeerisen virtauslaskennan ja kokeellisten tutkimusselvitysten tuloksia. Kolmiulotteisen huokoisen materiaalinnumeerisessa mallinnuksesta saadut tulokset vaikuttivat lupaavilta. Näiden tulosten perusteella tehtiin suosituksia ajatellen tulevaa virtauksen mallinnusta huokoisessa materiaalissa. Osa tässä diplomityössä esitetyistä tuloksista tullaan esittämään 55. Kanadan Kemiantekniikan konferenssissa Torontossa 1619 Lokakuussa 2005. ASME :n kansainvälisessä tekniikan alan julkaisussa. Työ on hyväksytty esitettäväksi esitettäväksi laskennallisen virtausmekaniikan (CFD) aihealueessa 'Peruskäsitteet'. Lisäksi työn yksityiskohtaiset tulokset tullaan lähettämään myös CES:n julkaisuun.

Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Thinking Outside the Box: Enhancing Science Teaching by Combining (Instead of Contrasting) Laboratory and Simulation Activities

The focus of the present work was on 10- to 12-year-old elementary school students’ conceptual learning outcomes in science in two specific inquiry-learning environments, laboratory and simulation. The main aim was to examine if it would be more beneficial to combine than contrast simulation and laboratory activities in science teaching. It was argued that the status quo where laboratories and simulations are seen as alternative or competing methods in science teaching is hardly an optimal solution to promote students’ learning and understanding in various science domains. It was hypothesized that it would make more sense and be more productive to combine laboratories and simulations. Several explanations and examples were provided to back up the hypothesis. In order to test whether learning with the combination of laboratory and simulation activities can result in better conceptual understanding in science than learning with laboratory or simulation activities alone, two experiments were conducted in the domain of electricity. In these experiments students constructed and studied electrical circuits in three different learning environments: laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits), and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits were used simultaneously). In order to measure and compare how these environments affected students’ conceptual understanding of circuits, a subject knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered before and after the experimentation. The results of the experiments were presented in four empirical studies. Three of the studies focused on learning outcomes between the conditions and one on learning processes. Study I analyzed learning outcomes from experiment I. The aim of the study was to investigate if it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Matched-trios were created based on the pre-test results of 66 elementary school students and divided randomly into a laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits) and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits simultaneously) conditions. In each condition students had 90 minutes to construct and study various circuits. The results showed that studying electrical circuits in the simulation–laboratory combination environment improved students’ conceptual understanding more than studying circuits in simulation and laboratory environments alone. Although there were no statistical differences between simulation and laboratory environments, the learning effect was more pronounced in the simulation condition where the students made clear progress during the intervention, whereas in the laboratory condition students’ conceptual understanding remained at an elementary level after the intervention. Study II analyzed learning outcomes from experiment II. The aim of the study was to investigate if and how learning outcomes in simulation and simulation-laboratory combination environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction in the context of simple DC circuits. Matched-quartets were created based on the pre-test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results showed that when the students were working with the simulation alone, they were able to gain significantly greater amount of subject knowledge when they received metacognitive support (explicit instruction; SE) for the discovery process than when they received only procedural guidance (implicit instruction: SI). However, this additional scaffolding was not enough to reach the level of the students in the combination environment (CI and CE). A surprising finding in Study II was that instructional support had a different effect in the combination environment than in the simulation environment. In the combination environment explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for students’ understanding of electric circuits compared to implicit instruction (CI). Instead, explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment. Study III analyzed from video data learning processes of those 50 students that participated in experiment II (cf. Study II above). The focus was on three specific learning processes: cognitive conflicts, self-explanations, and analogical encodings. The aim of the study was to find out possible explanations for the success of the combination condition in Experiments I and II. The video data provided clear evidence about the benefits of studying with the real and virtual circuits simultaneously (the combination conditions). Mostly the representations complemented each other, that is, one representation helped students to interpret and understand the outcomes they received from the other representation. However, there were also instances in which analogical encoding took place, that is, situations in which the slightly discrepant results between the representations ‘forced’ students to focus on those features that could be generalised across the two representations. No statistical differences were found in the amount of experienced cognitive conflicts and self-explanations between simulation and combination conditions, though in self-explanations there was a nascent trend in favour of the combination. There was also a clear tendency suggesting that explicit guidance increased the amount of self-explanations. Overall, the amount of cognitive conflicts and self-explanations was very low. The aim of the Study IV was twofold: the main aim was to provide an aggregated overview of the learning outcomes of experiments I and II; the secondary aim was to explore the relationship between the learning environments and students’ prior domain knowledge (low and high) in the experiments. Aggregated results of experiments I & II showed that on average, 91% of the students in the combination environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment, and 76% of them scored also above the average of the simulation environment. Seventy percent of the students in the simulation environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment. The results further showed that overall students seemed to benefit from combining simulations and laboratories regardless of their level of prior knowledge, that is, students with either low or high prior knowledge who studied circuits in the combination environment outperformed their counterparts who studied in the laboratory or simulation environment alone. The effect seemed to be slightly bigger among the students with low prior knowledge. However, more detailed inspection of the results showed that there were considerable differences between the experiments regarding how students with low and high prior knowledge benefitted from the combination: in Experiment I, especially students with low prior knowledge benefitted from the combination as compared to those students that used only the simulation, whereas in Experiment II, only students with high prior knowledge seemed to benefit from the combination relative to the simulation group. Regarding the differences between simulation and laboratory groups, the benefits of using a simulation seemed to be slightly higher among students with high prior knowledge. The results of the four empirical studies support the hypothesis concerning the benefits of using simulation along with laboratory activities to promote students’ conceptual understanding of electricity. It can be concluded that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only the real circuits or only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. The outcomes of the empirical studies can be considered as the first unambiguous evidence on the (additional) benefits of combining laboratory and simulation activities in science education as compared to learning with laboratories and simulations alone.