Teachers' Views of Human Rights Education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that education should be "directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms... promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups." This study surveyed 53 teachers on their views of Human Rights Education, including their familiarity with the concept, their self-efficacy with teaching it, and conditions that would increase the likelihood of their teaching it. The study found that, regardless of familiarity with the topic, years of teaching experience, or school location (urban/suburban), most teachers were open to teaching Human Rights Education. They did identify the need for better resources in the form of lesson plans, teaching materials, and professional training. In addition, support from other teachers, administration, and parents was felt to be important in order for them to undertake Human Rights Education. The best strategy to move forward with Human Rights Education would be to provide resources and support for teachers so that we can be living up to the expectations put forth in the UDHR.

Debates hacia adentro : Las ideas económicas del frente antifascista liberal en Argentina (1939-1943)

El artículo analiza las ideas económicas de un arco de instituciones y publicaciones políticas y culturales que convergieron en la consolidación del movimiento antifascista liberal en Argentina en 1939-1943, definido por el apoyo a los Aliados en la guerra mundial y la oposición a grupos nacionalistas y antiliberales y a la administración de Ramón S. Castillo (1940-1943). En diálogo con la nueva historiografía que ha revisado el período de entreguerras en Argentina, el artículo sostiene que la defensa de las libertades políticas y culturales, centro del discurso unificador del frente antifascista, coexistía con distintas posiciones sobre el liberalismo económico y el proceso de intervención del estado en la economía desarrollado por los grupos conservadores gobernantes desde 1930. El texto pone de relieve así la existencia de coincidencias inter-partidarias y diferencias intra-partidarias sobre dichos procesos que frecuentemente eran oscurecidos por el conflicto político de esos año

Debates hacia adentro : Las ideas económicas del frente antifascista liberal en Argentina (1939-1943)

El artículo analiza las ideas económicas de un arco de instituciones y publicaciones políticas y culturales que convergieron en la consolidación del movimiento antifascista liberal en Argentina en 1939-1943, definido por el apoyo a los Aliados en la guerra mundial y la oposición a grupos nacionalistas y antiliberales y a la administración de Ramón S. Castillo (1940-1943). En diálogo con la nueva historiografía que ha revisado el período de entreguerras en Argentina, el artículo sostiene que la defensa de las libertades políticas y culturales, centro del discurso unificador del frente antifascista, coexistía con distintas posiciones sobre el liberalismo económico y el proceso de intervención del estado en la economía desarrollado por los grupos conservadores gobernantes desde 1930. El texto pone de relieve así la existencia de coincidencias inter-partidarias y diferencias intra-partidarias sobre dichos procesos que frecuentemente eran oscurecidos por el conflicto político de esos año

Debates hacia adentro : Las ideas económicas del frente antifascista liberal en Argentina (1939-1943)

El artículo analiza las ideas económicas de un arco de instituciones y publicaciones políticas y culturales que convergieron en la consolidación del movimiento antifascista liberal en Argentina en 1939-1943, definido por el apoyo a los Aliados en la guerra mundial y la oposición a grupos nacionalistas y antiliberales y a la administración de Ramón S. Castillo (1940-1943). En diálogo con la nueva historiografía que ha revisado el período de entreguerras en Argentina, el artículo sostiene que la defensa de las libertades políticas y culturales, centro del discurso unificador del frente antifascista, coexistía con distintas posiciones sobre el liberalismo económico y el proceso de intervención del estado en la economía desarrollado por los grupos conservadores gobernantes desde 1930. El texto pone de relieve así la existencia de coincidencias inter-partidarias y diferencias intra-partidarias sobre dichos procesos que frecuentemente eran oscurecidos por el conflicto político de esos año

Caracterización de un robot para aplicaciones de mecanizado con requerimientos de tolerancias

El presente Trabajo fin Fin de Máster, versa sobre una caracterización preliminar del comportamiento de un robot de tipo industrial, configurado por 4 eslabones y 4 grados de libertad, y sometido a fuerzas de mecanizado en su extremo. El entorno de trabajo planteado es el de plantas de fabricación de piezas de aleaciones de aluminio para automoción. Este tipo de componentes parte de un primer proceso de fundición que saca la pieza en bruto. Para series medias y altas, en función de las propiedades mecánicas y plásticas requeridas y los costes de producción, la inyección a alta presión (HPDC) y la fundición a baja presión (LPC) son las dos tecnologías más usadas en esta primera fase. Para inyección a alta presión, las aleaciones de aluminio más empleadas son, en designación simbólica según norma EN 1706 (entre paréntesis su designación numérica); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). Para baja presión, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). En los 3 primeros casos, los límites de Silicio permitidos pueden superan el 10%. En el cuarto caso, es inferior al 10% por lo que, a los efectos de ser sometidas a mecanizados, las piezas fabricadas en aleaciones con Si superior al 10%, se puede considerar que son equivalentes, diferenciándolas de la cuarta. Las tolerancias geométricas y dimensionales conseguibles directamente de fundición, recogidas en normas como ISO 8062 o DIN 1688-1, establecen límites para este proceso. Fuera de esos límites, las garantías en conseguir producciones con los objetivos de ppms aceptados en la actualidad por el mercado, obligan a ir a fases posteriores de mecanizado. Aquellas geometrías que, funcionalmente, necesitan disponer de unas tolerancias geométricas y/o dimensionales definidas acorde a ISO 1101, y no capaces por este proceso inicial de moldeado a presión, deben ser procesadas en una fase posterior en células de mecanizado. En este caso, las tolerancias alcanzables para procesos de arranque de viruta se recogen en normas como ISO 2768. Las células de mecanizado se componen, por lo general, de varios centros de control numérico interrelacionados y comunicados entre sí por robots que manipulan las piezas en proceso de uno a otro. Dichos robots, disponen en su extremo de una pinza utillada para poder coger y soltar las piezas en los útiles de mecanizado, las mesas de intercambio para cambiar la pieza de posición o en utillajes de equipos de medición y prueba, o en cintas de entrada o salida. La repetibilidad es alta, de centésimas incluso, definida según norma ISO 9283. El problema es que, estos rangos de repetibilidad sólo se garantizan si no se hacen esfuerzos o éstos son despreciables (caso de mover piezas). Aunque las inercias de mover piezas a altas velocidades hacen que la trayectoria intermedia tenga poca precisión, al inicio y al final (al coger y dejar pieza, p.e.) se hacen a velocidades relativamente bajas que hacen que el efecto de las fuerzas de inercia sean menores y que permiten garantizar la repetibilidad anteriormente indicada. No ocurre así si se quitara la garra y se intercambia con un cabezal motorizado con una herramienta como broca, mandrino, plato de cuchillas, fresas frontales o tangenciales… Las fuerzas ejercidas de mecanizado generarían unos pares en las uniones tan grandes y tan variables que el control del robot no sería capaz de responder (o no está preparado, en un principio) y generaría una desviación en la trayectoria, realizada a baja velocidad, que desencadenaría en un error de posición (ver norma ISO 5458) no asumible para la funcionalidad deseada. Se podría llegar al caso de que la tolerancia alcanzada por un pretendido proceso más exacto diera una dimensión peor que la que daría el proceso de fundición, en principio con mayor variabilidad dimensional en proceso (y por ende con mayor intervalo de tolerancia garantizable). De hecho, en los CNCs, la precisión es muy elevada, (pudiéndose despreciar en la mayoría de los casos) y no es la responsable de, por ejemplo la tolerancia de posición al taladrar un agujero. Factores como, temperatura de la sala y de la pieza, calidad constructiva de los utillajes y rigidez en el amarre, error en el giro de mesas y de colocación de pieza, si lleva agujeros previos o no, si la herramienta está bien equilibrada y el cono es el adecuado para el tipo de mecanizado… influyen más. Es interesante que, un elemento no específico tan común en una planta industrial, en el entorno anteriormente descrito, como es un robot, el cual no sería necesario añadir por disponer de él ya (y por lo tanto la inversión sería muy pequeña), puede mejorar la cadena de valor disminuyendo el costo de fabricación. Y si se pudiera conjugar que ese robot destinado a tareas de manipulación, en los muchos tiempos de espera que va a disfrutar mientras el CNC arranca viruta, pudiese coger un cabezal y apoyar ese mecanizado; sería doblemente interesante. Por lo tanto, se antoja sugestivo poder conocer su comportamiento e intentar explicar qué sería necesario para llevar esto a cabo, motivo de este trabajo. La arquitectura de robot seleccionada es de tipo SCARA. La búsqueda de un robot cómodo de modelar y de analizar cinemática y dinámicamente, sin limitaciones relevantes en la multifuncionalidad de trabajos solicitados, ha llevado a esta elección, frente a otras arquitecturas como por ejemplo los robots antropomórficos de 6 grados de libertad, muy populares a nivel industrial. Este robot dispone de 3 uniones, de las cuales 2 son de tipo par de revolución (1 grado de libertad cada una) y la tercera es de tipo corredera o par cilíndrico (2 grados de libertad). La primera unión, de tipo par de revolución, sirve para unir el suelo (considerado como eslabón número 1) con el eslabón número 2. La segunda unión, también de ese tipo, une el eslabón número 2 con el eslabón número 3. Estos 2 brazos, pueden describir un movimiento horizontal, en el plano X-Y. El tercer eslabón, está unido al eslabón número 4 por la unión de tipo corredera. El movimiento que puede describir es paralelo al eje Z. El robot es de 4 grados de libertad (4 motores). En relación a los posibles trabajos que puede realizar este tipo de robot, su versatilidad abarca tanto operaciones típicas de manipulación como operaciones de arranque de viruta. Uno de los mecanizados más usuales es el taladrado, por lo cual se elige éste para su modelización y análisis. Dentro del taladrado se elegirá para acotar las fuerzas, taladrado en macizo con broca de diámetro 9 mm. El robot se ha considerado por el momento que tenga comportamiento de sólido rígido, por ser el mayor efecto esperado el de los pares en las uniones. Para modelar el robot se utiliza el método de los sistemas multicuerpos. Dentro de este método existen diversos tipos de formulaciones (p.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H genera una cantidad muy grande de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Esas incógnitas son de difícil comprensión y, para cada posición, hay que detenerse a pensar qué significado tienen. Se ha optado por la formulación de coordenadas naturales. Este sistema utiliza puntos y vectores unitarios para definir la posición de los distintos cuerpos, y permite compartir, cuando es posible y se quiere, para definir los pares cinemáticos y reducir al mismo tiempo el número de variables. Las incógnitas son intuitivas, las ecuaciones de restricción muy sencillas y se reduce considerablemente el número de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Sin embargo, las coordenadas naturales “puras” tienen 2 problemas. El primero, que 2 elementos con un ángulo de 0 o 180 grados, dan lugar a puntos singulares que pueden crear problemas en las ecuaciones de restricción y por lo tanto han de evitarse. El segundo, que tampoco inciden directamente sobre la definición o el origen de los movimientos. Por lo tanto, es muy conveniente complementar esta formulación con ángulos y distancias (coordenadas relativas). Esto da lugar a las coordenadas naturales mixtas, que es la formulación final elegida para este TFM. Las coordenadas naturales mixtas no tienen el problema de los puntos singulares. Y la ventaja más importante reside en su utilidad a la hora de aplicar fuerzas motrices, momentos o evaluar errores. Al incidir sobre la incógnita origen (ángulos o distancias) controla los motores de manera directa. El algoritmo, la simulación y la obtención de resultados se ha programado mediante Matlab. Para realizar el modelo en coordenadas naturales mixtas, es preciso modelar en 2 pasos el robot a estudio. El primer modelo se basa en coordenadas naturales. Para su validación, se plantea una trayectoria definida y se analiza cinemáticamente si el robot satisface el movimiento solicitado, manteniendo su integridad como sistema multicuerpo. Se cuantifican los puntos (en este caso inicial y final) que configuran el robot. Al tratarse de sólidos rígidos, cada eslabón queda definido por sus respectivos puntos inicial y final (que son los más interesantes para la cinemática y la dinámica) y por un vector unitario no colineal a esos 2 puntos. Los vectores unitarios se colocan en los lugares en los que se tenga un eje de rotación o cuando se desee obtener información de un ángulo. No son necesarios vectores unitarios para medir distancias. Tampoco tienen por qué coincidir los grados de libertad con el número de vectores unitarios. Las longitudes de cada eslabón quedan definidas como constantes geométricas. Se establecen las restricciones que definen la naturaleza del robot y las relaciones entre los diferentes elementos y su entorno. La trayectoria se genera por una nube de puntos continua, definidos en coordenadas independientes. Cada conjunto de coordenadas independientes define, en un instante concreto, una posición y postura de robot determinada. Para conocerla, es necesario saber qué coordenadas dependientes hay en ese instante, y se obtienen resolviendo por el método de Newton-Rhapson las ecuaciones de restricción en función de las coordenadas independientes. El motivo de hacerlo así es porque las coordenadas dependientes deben satisfacer las restricciones, cosa que no ocurre con las coordenadas independientes. Cuando la validez del modelo se ha probado (primera validación), se pasa al modelo 2. El modelo número 2, incorpora a las coordenadas naturales del modelo número 1, las coordenadas relativas en forma de ángulos en los pares de revolución (3 ángulos; ϕ1, ϕ 2 y ϕ3) y distancias en los pares prismáticos (1 distancia; s). Estas coordenadas relativas pasan a ser las nuevas coordenadas independientes (sustituyendo a las coordenadas independientes cartesianas del modelo primero, que eran coordenadas naturales). Es necesario revisar si el sistema de vectores unitarios del modelo 1 es suficiente o no. Para este caso concreto, se han necesitado añadir 1 vector unitario adicional con objeto de que los ángulos queden perfectamente determinados con las correspondientes ecuaciones de producto escalar y/o vectorial. Las restricciones habrán de ser incrementadas en, al menos, 4 ecuaciones; una por cada nueva incógnita. La validación del modelo número 2, tiene 2 fases. La primera, al igual que se hizo en el modelo número 1, a través del análisis cinemático del comportamiento con una trayectoria definida. Podrían obtenerse del modelo 2 en este análisis, velocidades y aceleraciones, pero no son necesarios. Tan sólo interesan los movimientos o desplazamientos finitos. Comprobada la coherencia de movimientos (segunda validación), se pasa a analizar cinemáticamente el comportamiento con trayectorias interpoladas. El análisis cinemático con trayectorias interpoladas, trabaja con un número mínimo de 3 puntos máster. En este caso se han elegido 3; punto inicial, punto intermedio y punto final. El número de interpolaciones con el que se actúa es de 50 interpolaciones en cada tramo (cada 2 puntos máster hay un tramo), resultando un total de 100 interpolaciones. El método de interpolación utilizado es el de splines cúbicas con condición de aceleración inicial y final constantes, que genera las coordenadas independientes de los puntos interpolados de cada tramo. Las coordenadas dependientes se obtienen resolviendo las ecuaciones de restricción no lineales con el método de Newton-Rhapson. El método de las splines cúbicas es muy continuo, por lo que si se desea modelar una trayectoria en el que haya al menos 2 movimientos claramente diferenciados, es preciso hacerlo en 2 tramos y unirlos posteriormente. Sería el caso en el que alguno de los motores se desee expresamente que esté parado durante el primer movimiento y otro distinto lo esté durante el segundo movimiento (y así sucesivamente). Obtenido el movimiento, se calculan, también mediante fórmulas de diferenciación numérica, las velocidades y aceleraciones independientes. El proceso es análogo al anteriormente explicado, recordando la condición impuesta de que la aceleración en el instante t= 0 y en instante t= final, se ha tomado como 0. Las velocidades y aceleraciones dependientes se calculan resolviendo las correspondientes derivadas de las ecuaciones de restricción. Se comprueba, de nuevo, en una tercera validación del modelo, la coherencia del movimiento interpolado. La dinámica inversa calcula, para un movimiento definido -conocidas la posición, velocidad y la aceleración en cada instante de tiempo-, y conocidas las fuerzas externas que actúan (por ejemplo el peso); qué fuerzas hay que aplicar en los motores (donde hay control) para que se obtenga el citado movimiento. En la dinámica inversa, cada instante del tiempo es independiente de los demás y tiene una posición, una velocidad y una aceleración y unas fuerzas conocidas. En este caso concreto, se desean aplicar, de momento, sólo las fuerzas debidas al peso, aunque se podrían haber incorporado fuerzas de otra naturaleza si se hubiese deseado. Las posiciones, velocidades y aceleraciones, proceden del cálculo cinemático. El efecto inercial de las fuerzas tenidas en cuenta (el peso) es calculado. Como resultado final del análisis dinámico inverso, se obtienen los pares que han de ejercer los cuatro motores para replicar el movimiento prescrito con las fuerzas que estaban actuando. La cuarta validación del modelo consiste en confirmar que el movimiento obtenido por aplicar los pares obtenidos en la dinámica inversa, coinciden con el obtenido en el análisis cinemático (movimiento teórico). Para ello, es necesario acudir a la dinámica directa. La dinámica directa se encarga de calcular el movimiento del robot, resultante de aplicar unos pares en motores y unas fuerzas en el robot. Por lo tanto, el movimiento real resultante, al no haber cambiado ninguna condición de las obtenidas en la dinámica inversa (pares de motor y fuerzas inerciales debidas al peso de los eslabones) ha de ser el mismo al movimiento teórico. Siendo así, se considera que el robot está listo para trabajar. Si se introduce una fuerza exterior de mecanizado no contemplada en la dinámica inversa y se asigna en los motores los mismos pares resultantes de la resolución del problema dinámico inverso, el movimiento real obtenido no es igual al movimiento teórico. El control de lazo cerrado se basa en ir comparando el movimiento real con el deseado e introducir las correcciones necesarias para minimizar o anular las diferencias. Se aplican ganancias en forma de correcciones en posición y/o velocidad para eliminar esas diferencias. Se evalúa el error de posición como la diferencia, en cada punto, entre el movimiento teórico deseado en el análisis cinemático y el movimiento real obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y una ganancia concreta. Finalmente, se mapea el error de posición obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y las diferentes ganancias previstas, graficando la mejor precisión que puede dar el robot para cada operación que se le requiere, y en qué condiciones. -------------- This Master´s Thesis deals with a preliminary characterization of the behaviour for an industrial robot, configured with 4 elements and 4 degrees of freedoms, and subjected to machining forces at its end. Proposed working conditions are those typical from manufacturing plants with aluminium alloys for automotive industry. This type of components comes from a first casting process that produces rough parts. For medium and high volumes, high pressure die casting (HPDC) and low pressure die casting (LPC) are the most used technologies in this first phase. For high pressure die casting processes, most used aluminium alloys are, in simbolic designation according EN 1706 standard (between brackets, its numerical designation); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). For low pressure, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). For the 3 first alloys, Si allowed limits can exceed 10% content. Fourth alloy has admisible limits under 10% Si. That means, from the point of view of machining, that components made of alloys with Si content above 10% can be considered as equivalent, and the fourth one must be studied separately. Geometrical and dimensional tolerances directly achievables from casting, gathered in standards such as ISO 8062 or DIN 1688-1, establish a limit for this process. Out from those limits, guarantees to achieve batches with objetive ppms currently accepted by market, force to go to subsequent machining process. Those geometries that functionally require a geometrical and/or dimensional tolerance defined according ISO 1101, not capable with initial moulding process, must be obtained afterwards in a machining phase with machining cells. In this case, tolerances achievables with cutting processes are gathered in standards such as ISO 2768. In general terms, machining cells contain several CNCs that they are interrelated and connected by robots that handle parts in process among them. Those robots have at their end a gripper in order to take/remove parts in machining fixtures, in interchange tables to modify position of part, in measurement and control tooling devices, or in entrance/exit conveyors. Repeatibility for robot is tight, even few hundredths of mm, defined according ISO 9283. Problem is like this; those repeatibilty ranks are only guaranteed when there are no stresses or they are not significant (f.e. due to only movement of parts). Although inertias due to moving parts at a high speed make that intermediate paths have little accuracy, at the beginning and at the end of trajectories (f.e, when picking part or leaving it) movement is made with very slow speeds that make lower the effect of inertias forces and allow to achieve repeatibility before mentioned. It does not happens the same if gripper is removed and it is exchanged by an spindle with a machining tool such as a drilling tool, a pcd boring tool, a face or a tangential milling cutter… Forces due to machining would create such big and variable torques in joints that control from the robot would not be able to react (or it is not prepared in principle) and would produce a deviation in working trajectory, made at a low speed, that would trigger a position error (see ISO 5458 standard) not assumable for requested function. Then it could be possible that tolerance achieved by a more exact expected process would turn out into a worst dimension than the one that could be achieved with casting process, in principle with a larger dimensional variability in process (and hence with a larger tolerance range reachable). As a matter of fact, accuracy is very tight in CNC, (its influence can be ignored in most cases) and it is not the responsible of, for example position tolerance when drilling a hole. Factors as, room and part temperature, manufacturing quality of machining fixtures, stiffness at clamping system, rotating error in 4th axis and part positioning error, if there are previous holes, if machining tool is properly balanced, if shank is suitable for that machining type… have more influence. It is interesting to know that, a non specific element as common, at a manufacturing plant in the enviroment above described, as a robot (not needed to be added, therefore with an additional minimum investment), can improve value chain decreasing manufacturing costs. And when it would be possible to combine that the robot dedicated to handling works could support CNCs´ works in its many waiting time while CNCs cut, and could take an spindle and help to cut; it would be double interesting. So according to all this, it would be interesting to be able to know its behaviour and try to explain what would be necessary to make this possible, reason of this work. Selected robot architecture is SCARA type. The search for a robot easy to be modeled and kinematically and dinamically analyzed, without significant limits in the multifunctionality of requested operations, has lead to this choice. Due to that, other very popular architectures in the industry, f.e. 6 DOFs anthropomorphic robots, have been discarded. This robot has 3 joints, 2 of them are revolute joints (1 DOF each one) and the third one is a cylindrical joint (2 DOFs). The first joint, a revolute one, is used to join floor (body 1) with body 2. The second one, a revolute joint too, joins body 2 with body 3. These 2 bodies can move horizontally in X-Y plane. Body 3 is linked to body 4 with a cylindrical joint. Movement that can be made is paralell to Z axis. The robt has 4 degrees of freedom (4 motors). Regarding potential works that this type of robot can make, its versatility covers either typical handling operations or cutting operations. One of the most common machinings is to drill. That is the reason why it has been chosen for the model and analysis. Within drilling, in order to enclose spectrum force, a typical solid drilling with 9 mm diameter. The robot is considered, at the moment, to have a behaviour as rigid body, as biggest expected influence is the one due to torques at joints. In order to modelize robot, it is used multibodies system method. There are under this heading different sorts of formulations (f.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H creates a great amount of equations and unknown quantities. Those unknown quatities are of a difficult understanding and, for each position, one must stop to think about which meaning they have. The choice made is therefore one of formulation in natural coordinates. This system uses points and unit vectors to define position of each different elements, and allow to share, when it is possible and wished, to define kinematic torques and reduce number of variables at the same time. Unknown quantities are intuitive, constrain equations are easy and number of equations and variables are strongly reduced. However, “pure” natural coordinates suffer 2 problems. The first one is that 2 elements with an angle of 0° or 180°, give rise to singular positions that can create problems in constrain equations and therefore they must be avoided. The second problem is that they do not work directly over the definition or the origin of movements. Given that, it is highly recommended to complement this formulation with angles and distances (relative coordinates). This leads to mixed natural coordinates, and they are the final formulation chosen for this MTh. Mixed natural coordinates have not the problem of singular positions. And the most important advantage lies in their usefulness when applying driving forces, torques or evaluating errors. As they influence directly over origin variable (angles or distances), they control motors directly. The algorithm, simulation and obtaining of results has been programmed with Matlab. To design the model in mixed natural coordinates, it is necessary to model the robot to be studied in 2 steps. The first model is based in natural coordinates. To validate it, it is raised a defined trajectory and it is kinematically analyzed if robot fulfils requested movement, keeping its integrity as multibody system. The points (in this case starting and ending points) that configure the robot are quantified. As the elements are considered as rigid bodies, each of them is defined by its respectively starting and ending point (those points are the most interesting ones from the point of view of kinematics and dynamics) and by a non-colinear unit vector to those points. Unit vectors are placed where there is a rotating axis or when it is needed information of an angle. Unit vectors are not needed to measure distances. Neither DOFs must coincide with the number of unit vectors. Lengths of each arm are defined as geometrical constants. The constrains that define the nature of the robot and relationships among different elements and its enviroment are set. Path is generated by a cloud of continuous points, defined in independent coordinates. Each group of independent coordinates define, in an specific instant, a defined position and posture for the robot. In order to know it, it is needed to know which dependent coordinates there are in that instant, and they are obtained solving the constraint equations with Newton-Rhapson method according to independent coordinates. The reason to make it like this is because dependent coordinates must meet constraints, and this is not the case with independent coordinates. When suitability of model is checked (first approval), it is given next step to model 2. Model 2 adds to natural coordinates from model 1, the relative coordinates in the shape of angles in revoluting torques (3 angles; ϕ1, ϕ 2 and ϕ3) and distances in prismatic torques (1 distance; s). These relative coordinates become the new independent coordinates (replacing to cartesian independent coordinates from model 1, that they were natural coordinates). It is needed to review if unit vector system from model 1 is enough or not . For this specific case, it was necessary to add 1 additional unit vector to define perfectly angles with their related equations of dot and/or cross product. Constrains must be increased in, at least, 4 equations; one per each new variable. The approval of model 2 has two phases. The first one, same as made with model 1, through kinematic analysis of behaviour with a defined path. During this analysis, it could be obtained from model 2, velocities and accelerations, but they are not needed. They are only interesting movements and finite displacements. Once that the consistence of movements has been checked (second approval), it comes when the behaviour with interpolated trajectories must be kinematically analyzed. Kinematic analysis with interpolated trajectories work with a minimum number of 3 master points. In this case, 3 points have been chosen; starting point, middle point and ending point. The number of interpolations has been of 50 ones in each strecht (each 2 master points there is an strecht), turning into a total of 100 interpolations. The interpolation method used is the cubic splines one with condition of constant acceleration both at the starting and at the ending point. This method creates the independent coordinates of interpolated points of each strecht. The dependent coordinates are achieved solving the non-linear constrain equations with Newton-Rhapson method. The method of cubic splines is very continuous, therefore when it is needed to design a trajectory in which there are at least 2 movements clearly differents, it is required to make it in 2 steps and join them later. That would be the case when any of the motors would keep stopped during the first movement, and another different motor would remain stopped during the second movement (and so on). Once that movement is obtained, they are calculated, also with numerical differenciation formulas, the independent velocities and accelerations. This process is analogous to the one before explained, reminding condition that acceleration when t=0 and t=end are 0. Dependent velocities and accelerations are calculated solving related derivatives of constrain equations. In a third approval of the model it is checked, again, consistence of interpolated movement. Inverse dynamics calculates, for a defined movement –knowing position, velocity and acceleration in each instant of time-, and knowing external forces that act (f.e. weights); which forces must be applied in motors (where there is control) in order to obtain requested movement. In inverse dynamics, each instant of time is independent of the others and it has a position, a velocity, an acceleration and known forces. In this specific case, it is intended to apply, at the moment, only forces due to the weight, though forces of another nature could have been added if it would have been preferred. The positions, velocities and accelerations, come from kinematic calculation. The inertial effect of forces taken into account (weight) is calculated. As final result of the inverse dynamic analysis, the are obtained torques that the 4 motors must apply to repeat requested movement with the forces that were acting. The fourth approval of the model consists on confirming that the achieved movement due to the use of the torques obtained in the inverse dynamics, are in accordance with movements from kinematic analysis (theoretical movement). For this, it is necessary to work with direct dynamics. Direct dynamic is in charge of calculating the movements of robot that results from applying torques at motors and forces at the robot. Therefore, the resultant real movement, as there was no change in any condition of the ones obtained at the inverse dynamics (motor torques and inertial forces due to weight of elements) must be the same than theoretical movement. When these results are achieved, it is considered that robot is ready to work. When a machining external force is introduced and it was not taken into account before during the inverse dynamics, and torques at motors considered are the ones of the inverse dynamics, the real movement obtained is not the same than the theoretical movement. Closed loop control is based on comparing real movement with expected movement and introducing required corrrections to minimize or cancel differences. They are applied gains in the way of corrections for position and/or tolerance to remove those differences. Position error is evaluated as the difference, in each point, between theoretical movemment (calculated in the kinematic analysis) and the real movement achieved for each machining force and for an specific gain. Finally, the position error obtained for each machining force and gains are mapped, giving a chart with the best accuracy that the robot can give for each operation that has been requested and which conditions must be provided.

Como trabalhar os direitos das crianças numa perspetiva de educação para a cidadania nas primeiras idades

Relatório apresentado para a obtenção do grau de mestre em Educação pré-escolar e 1º ciclo do ensino básico

Environmental Information Access as a Security Risk

The United Sates was founded on the principles of freedom. Events in recent history have threatened the freedoms we as individuals enjoy. Notably, changes to government legislation and policies regarding access to environmentally sensitive information following September 11, 2001, are troubling. The government has struggled with a difficult balancing act. The public has the right of access to information, yet, information some view as sensitive or dangerous must be kept out of the hands of terrorists. This project examines and discusses the information access debate within the United States and how to best provide the public environmentally sensitive information.

Shifting Responsibilities for EU Roma Citizens: The 2010 French affair on Roma evictions and expulsions continued. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 55, June 2013

Despite the ultimatum delivered in October 2010 to the French government by Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, to adapt its national immigration law ‘to the letter’ of the Citizens Directive 2004/38, the country has continued to evict and expel Romanian and Bulgarian nationals of Roma origin. This paper examines the state of affairs with respect to France’s policy on eviction and expulsion of Roma and assesses the way in which the controversy has developed and can be understood from the perspective of citizenship of the EU. On the basis of an examination of the subsequent responses by the European Commission and the EU member states involved, as well as of a recent bilateral agreement concluded between France and Romania on the reintegration of families of Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority who have exercised their freedom to move, the paper suggests that there has been a paradigm shift in the priorities driving EU policy responses and politics. This shift has led to an ethnicisation of citizenship of the Union, where ethnicity increasingly plays a decisive role in the allocation and attribution of responsibility to secure and safeguard the union freedoms.

Free movement of workers in the EU. Legal aspects of the transitional arrangements. ZEI Discussion Paper No. 217, 2013

From the Introduction. There are four fundamental freedoms which lay the foundation of the European Union. Those are the free movement of goods, free movement of capital, free movement of services and free movement of persons. They guarantee the existence and effective functioning of an area without internal borders within which goods, capital, services and people move freely. Despite the pivotal importance of these freedoms, there are cases where some freedoms can be partially or fully restricted within the territory of some member states or the Union as a whole. This thesis is going to analyze the restrictions of one of these freedoms: the free movement of persons, resulting from the arrangements applying to new member states. The focus will be the free movement of workers from new to old member states for a transitional period following the date of accession.

L’Europa sociale e il diritto: il contributo del metodo comparato [Social Europe and the law: the contribution of the comparative method]. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 94/2012

The essay explores the evolution of comparative law and the contribution of its more recent methodological results on the process of European social integration through law. The analysis of the comparative method in general glides on a discipline, such a as labour law, traditionally linked to the "nomos" of the nation state and looks at the process of its own supranationalization through the lens which is the comparative method; a method used mainly by the juridical format (national and supranational courts). The analysis focuses on the fixed term contract and on the vexing question of collective social fundamental rights vis a vis fundamental economic freedoms in the EU where national constitutional traditions and supranational principals risk collision due also to the comparative method.

Diritti sociali e crisi del costituzionalismo europeo [Social rights and the crisis of European constitutionalism]. WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.INT – 95/2012

In the face of what looks like a real impasse of the the line of European constitutionalism, partly due to an orientation of the Court of Justice which tends to favor the protection of economic freedoms over the protection of social rights, two opposing trends occurr. The first amounts to a new "constitutional patriotism"; the second entrusts the protection of fundamental social rights no longer to a single Chart or to a single court but to a multi-level system of protection. A dialogue between the European courts that truly valorizes fundamental rights, however, might be hindered by what someone has seen as a resurgence of the dualist theories, evident in an ECJ’s decision as Kadi.

The Arab Spring: A Litmus Test for the EU’s Women’s Rights Policy in the Euro-Mediterranean Area? Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Paper 1/2013

The promotion of women’s rights is described as a priority within the external action of the European Union (EU). As a result of the Arab Spring uprisings which have been ongoing since 2011, democracy and human rights have been pushed to the forefront of European policy towards the Euro-Mediterranean region. The EU could capitalise on these transformations to help positively reshape gender relations or it could fail to adapt. Thus, the Arab Spring can be seen to serve as a litmus test for the EU’s women’s rights policy. This paper examines how and to what extent the EU diffuses women’s rights in this region, by using Ian Manners’ ‘Normative Power Europe’ as the conceptual framework. It argues that while the EU tries to behave as a normative force for women’s empowerment by way of ‘informational diffusion’, ‘transference’ ‘procedural diffusion’ and ‘overt diffusion’; its efforts could, and should, be strengthened. There are reservations over the EU’s credibility, choice of engagement and its commitment in the face of security and ideological concerns. Moreover, it seems that the EU focuses more intently on women’s political rights than on their social and economic freedoms.

Mass Surveillance of Personal Data by EU Member States and its Compatibility with EU Law. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 61, 6 November 2013

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillance programmes, this paper assesses the large-scale surveillance practices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of these practices, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligence gathering, the paper contends that an analysis of European surveillance programmes cannot be reduced to a question of the balance between data protection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collective freedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member states selected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scale interception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels and discrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. The paper argues that these programmes do not stand outside the realm of EU intervention but can be analysed from an EU law perspective via i) an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law framework where fundamental human rights and judicial oversight constitute key norms; ii) the risks posed to the internal security of the Union as a whole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners and iii) the potential spillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The paper then presents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

EU citizenship: Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.

Social Benefits and Migration: A Contested Relationship and Policy Challenge in the EU. CEPS Paperbacks. September 2013

Following the financial crisis that commenced in 2008, the relationship between migration and social benefits has become increasingly contested in a number of large EU member states. The Eastern expansion of the EU in 2004 and 2007 has added a new dimension to the relationship. Concerns have spread across a number of member states about the 'costs' and 'financial burdens' of migration and intra-EU mobility and there have been calls for restrictions of existing EU rights and freedoms in the areas of EU free movement, social security coordination, asylum and migration laws.