Search results

This paper aims to present a prototype of the diagnostic system for the examination of the distribution of the force applied by foot to substrate during usual human moving. Presented system is competitive to other currently available devices, thanks to sensors reliability, user-friendly operation manner and design based on cheap parts. The results of examinations are transmitted by radiomodem. Its recording and visualization are possible on either personal or mobile computers.

During selection of the sensors substrate, many polymeric electrets were examined. Polyvinylidene fluoride films were selected, because they have good charge uniformity across the surface, wide range of acceptable temperatures, linear relation between mechanical stress and output signal and high resistance for squeezing. The system measures the charge generated in film.

The pressures are recorded in relation to maximum value; therefore, measuring system does not require calibration. The simultaneous recording of data from all eight sensors allows tracking the signal without distortion.

An array of sensors is installed in the shoe insole. The measuring device is fixed to the outer surface of the shoe. Its weight is 75 g. The range of transmission is suitable for examination in the natural environment, outside traditional consulting room. Software is dedicated for analysis of the pressure distribution in every moment of the foot movement. The system is suitable for examination of flat feet, diabetic foot and recovery progress after injures.

A flexible assembly system, built along modular lines, offers the potential to meet a variety of production line requirements

This case study was made possible by the co‐operation of the managing director of Cosyfeet, Mr David Price, to whom we are very grateful. The case was prepared as a basis for class discussion and as an illustration of what may or may not constitute success in a small business context.

April 10, 1967 Building — Safety regulations — Roof — Barrel roof ending in flat roof at either end — Flat roof 20 feet from ground — Workman on duckboard on barrel roof — Workman's fall from roof — Whether flat roof a “working place”— Whether flat roof or duckboard a “gangway”—Whether duckboard “adequate foothold”— Whether duckboard “safe meats of access and egress” — Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948 (S. I. 1948, No. 1145), regs. 24(1), 27(2), 31(1) — Construction (General Provisions) Regulations, 1961 (S. I. 1961 No. 1580) reg.7(1).

November 10, 1966 Building — Safety regulations — “Working place” — Flat roof — Workman constructing flat concrete roof — No guard‐rails — Man's fall from roof — Whether roof “working place” — Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948 (S.I. 1948, No. 1145), reg.24(1).

The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Philadelphia Police Department instituted a large‐scale randomized controlled trial of foot patrol as a policing strategy and experienced 23 percent fewer violent crimes during the treatment period. The authors examine whether activities patrol officers were conducting might have produced the crime reduction. The activities of foot and car patrol officers research takes a closer look at what types are examined separately and differences between car patrol activities pre‐intervention and during the intervention are explored. Activities of foot versus car patrol officers during the study period are compared across treatment and control areas.

Official data on police officer activity are used to compare activities conducted by foot patrol officers with those by car patrol officers in 60 treatment (foot beat) and 60 control areas consisting of violent crime hot spots. Activities of car patrol officers are described pre‐intervention and during the intervention. Foot patrol officers’ activities are described within treatment and control areas during the treatment phase of the experiment. Car patrol officers’ activities are reported separately. The statistical significance of changes in car patrol activity pre and during intervention is evaluated using a series of mixed model ANOVAs.

There were noticeable differences in the activities conducted by foot and car patrol. Foot patrol officers spent most of their time initiating pedestrian stops and addressing disorder incidents, while car patrol officers handled the vast majority of reported crime incidents. Car patrol activity declined in both treatment and control areas during the intervention but there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and the control areas.

The major limitation of this study is the restricted set of data describing officer activity that is captured by official records. Future studies should include a more robust ethnographic component to better understand the broad spectrum of police activity in order to more effectively gauge the ways in which foot patrol and car‐based officers’ activities interact to address community safety. This understanding can help extend the literature on “co‐production” by highlighting the safety partnerships that may develop organically across individual units within a police organization.

The study provides evidence that individual policing strategies undertaken by agencies impact one another. When implementing and evaluating new programs, it would be beneficial for police managers and researchers to consider the impact on activities of the dominant patrol style, as necessary, to understand how a specific intervention might have achieved its goal or why it might have failed to show an effect.

The research contributes to the understanding of the separate and joint effects of foot and car patrol on crime. In addition, it provides police managers with a clearer picture of the ways in which foot patrol police and car‐based officers work to co‐produce community safety in violent inner‐city areas.

March 2, 1967 Factories — Lighting — Whether “sufficient and suitable lighting” — Accident in workshop before commencement of work — Shadow cast by machine — Fall over tie‐bar used for manufacture of mixer — Light from three pilot lights more than 0.5 foot candles — Whether breach of statutory standard — Whether breach of regulations —Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz.II, c.34), s.5(l) (2) —Factories (Standards of Lighting) Regulations, 1941 (S.R. & O. 1941, No. 94), regs.2(a), (b), 4.

The purpose of this paper is to test the measurement performances of a planar‐type meander sensor installed in robot foot in order to examine its potential application as ground reaction force sensor.

A planar‐type meander sensor is composed of two pairs of meander coils. Variation of input inductance between coils serves as a measure of small displacements in a plane. Pairs of meander coils are installed in an actuated robot foot to measure displacements proportional to normal or tangential components of ground reaction force which acts upon the foot. The sensor was modeled by the concept of partial inductance and a new simulation tool was developed based on this concept.

Pairs of meander coils were tested against angular displacements, and results showed that the sensor gives correct information about displacement regardless how the foot touches the ground with its whole area. Deviations between position of computed and real acting point of ground reaction force are relatively small. Owing to good results obtained, a miniaturized sensor was developed having the same performances as previously developed prototype.

This paper presents initial work in implementing a planar‐type meander sensor in robot foot as to measure ground reaction force. Developed simulation tool gives accurate analysis of inductance variation of meander structures. In addition, the measurement error and sensor's nonlinearity are analyzed. Calculated results show a good agreement with experimental results. Hence, miniaturized sensor, easier for implementation, is proposed.

June 29, 1967 Mines — Quarry — Fall of stone from face — Face inspection at 8.30 a.m. but not immediately preceding work by men at foot of face — Whether proper inspection — Probability that stone fall caused by superincumbent load, lifting shots and rain — No system of notifying manager of direction to workers to carry out dangerous operation — Whether proper system — Man directed to work in dangerous place without manager's knowledge — Death of man from stone fall — Whether reasonable care taken for man's safety — “… Close and effective supervision … by manager” — Whether manager supervising if unaware of operation — “Duty to avoid dangers from falls” — Whether absolute — “Defence … that… impracticable to avoid or prevent … contravention” of statutory provision — Onus of proof — Whether discharged by defendants — Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz.II, c.70), ss.l03(l), 108(1), 157.