Category: Engineering

ACID vs BASE (with Real-World Scenarios)

These are two different philosophies for handling data consistency in databases.

ACID (Used in Relational Databases)

ACID focuses on correctness first, even if it costs speed or scalability.

ACID =

Atomicity

Consistency

Isolation

Durability

Meaning (Simple)

Either everything happens correctly, or nothing happens at all.

Real-World Scenario: Bank Money Transfer

Suppose 10,000 is transferred from Account A Account B.

Atomicity:

Either money is deducted from A and added to B, or no change at all.

Consistency:

Total money in both accounts remains correct.

Isolation:

Another user checking balance wont see half-done transfer.

Durability:

Once transfer is done, it stays doneeven after power failure.

Where ACID is used:

Banking systems

Financial transactions

Railway / airline ticket booking

Payroll systems

Pros

Very reliable

No data corruption

Strong consistency

Cons

Slower

Hard to scale

Not ideal for massive traffic

BASE (Used in NoSQL / Distributed Systems)

BASE focuses on availability and speed, allowing temporary inconsistency.

BASE =

Basically Available

Soft state

Eventual consistency

Meaning (Simple)

Data may be inconsistent for a short time, but will become correct eventually.

Real-World Scenario: Online Shopping (Amazon-like)

You order the last mobile phone in stock.

You see Order placed successfully

At the same time, another user may also see In stock

After some time, system updates and fixes stock count

This delay is acceptable in e-commerce.

Where BASE is used:

Social media likes/comments

Online shopping

Analytics systems

Messaging apps

Pros

Very fast

Highly scalable

Works well with millions of users

Cons

Temporary inconsistency

Not suitable for critical financial data

I want you to write a reflective report for professional ethics engineering course and using the table of content provided, based on the example I gave you.

I need to re-write my propasal and applied everything in the pdf file to it WITH OUT using paraharsing tools. Please use a strong and an academic English style. Also You MUST FOLLOW the attached sample structure and using the detailes in the proposed structure for proposal. Make sure the reference in Harved style

I need to re-write my propasal and applied everything in the pdf file to it WITH OUT using paraharsing tools. Please use a strong and an academic English style. Also You MUST FOLLOW the attached sample structure and using the detailes in the proposed structure for proposal. Make sure the reference in Harved style

overview of my proposed plan for the 2,000-word briefing paper addressed to the UKs National Armaments Director regarding the governance of the 2035 autonomous logistics vehicle programme. Based on the coursework specification, I have selected Questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 to create a comprehensive narrative that applies lessons from the Ajax armoured vehicle programme to future autonomous systems.

PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Section 1: Dependability and the Trust Gap (Question 1) In this section, I will explore the distinction between “trust that” (intellectual assent to technical specifications) and “trust in” (existential dependence on a system during a mission). Drawing on the Ajax case study, I will argue that the programme relied on “decontextualised assurance” that failed to capture operational reality. I plan to use Heideggers philosophical distinction between Pure Being and Process Being to recommend that requirements be specified through mission scenarios that account for the asset, materials, and human action combined.

Section 2: Reliability and Emergent Failure (Question 2) My analysis will focus on emergent, interaction-driven failure modes that do not stem from individual component breakdowns. I will argue that the human supervisor must be treated as a functional system element within the FMECA and Fault Tree Analysis to identify cumulative physiological or cognitive harms. This approach aims to avoid the system boundary problems encountered by Ajax, where the crew was excluded from formal reliability models.

Section 3: Evidence Architecture and Jacksons Heuristics (Question 5) I will propose a governance structure designed to avoid single points of failure in the evidence chain, such as the contractor monopoly on technical data seen in Ajax. I will explicitly apply Jacksons design heuristics, specifically “Drift Correction” to detect collective optimism bias and the “Inter-element Impediment” heuristic to ensure technical concerns reach senior decision-makers without being filtered by institutional boundaries.

Section 4: Safety-II, Migration, and Measurement (Question 6) Finally, I will advise a shift from Safety-I (preventing what goes wrong) to Safety-II (ensuring things go right under varying conditions). Using Rasmussens migration model, I will explain how cost and schedule pressures push programmes toward safety boundaries through “locally rational” decisions. To provide an objective measure of governance resilience, I will recommend the implementation of a Figure of Merit (FOM) to simulate the value of system performance across the entire lifecycle.

WORD COUNT AND EVIDENCE BASE

Each section will be approximately 450500 words, ensuring I meet the total limit while demonstrating the required depth of reading. I intend to blend practitioner reports, such as the NAO (2022) and Sheldon Review (2023), with academic theories from Hollnagel, Rasmussen, and Ferris to support my assertions.- –1

1- read all the six unites and try to cite from them for the paper , each quetion is covrer the unit , for exapmle q1 is for unit one

2- you will find recommendationed source use them will extra critical secah too meet the recbric + class units cition.

3- read all Ajax Case Study Tasks which is related to the cource work

4- read all COURSEWORK SPECIFICATION try to follow the rubric to get good grae cuz last assigmt i got bas grade which 55, cuz it should be critical thinking + argumet with strong dephth redaing to get a good grade.

At the moment you are only making some assumptions but not building an argument. You really need to develop the ability to build arguments. This requires you do explain how and why, not just what

The problem statement should be clearly articulated and demonstrates critical insight. Use a range of academic and industry sources, and keep your line of argument clear from the beginning. For example, you could focus on how decision-making is influenced by tensions between AI systems and engineering managers judgment, explain how these tensions affect project outcomes, and what may happen if they are not properly managed.

Aim must be linked to the problem statement and benefit from originality. All Objectives must link back to the issue productivity in the aim statement. The aim statement would also benefit from originality.

The literature review Must be clearly focused on explaining what we know with respect to the research aim and objectives and the knowledge gap and literature review must do three things:

1) define what we already know

2) show where scholars disagree, or what remains unclear

3) identify the exact gap your study will address

Literature review must not be descriptive part but it must be analytical and do this in the literature review t

Instead of: Author A says Author B says Do this While X suggests this overlooks However, this assumes which becomes problematic when

At the moment you are only making some assumptions but not building an argument. You really need to develop the ability to build arguments. This requires you do explain how and why, not just what

The problem statement should be clearly articulated and demonstrates critical insight. Use a range of academic and industry sources, and keep your line of argument clear from the beginning. For example, you could focus on how decision-making is influenced by tensions between AI systems and engineering managers judgment, explain how these tensions affect project outcomes, and what may happen if they are not properly managed.

Aim must be linked to the problem statement and benefit from originality. All Objectives must link back to the issue productivity in the aim statement. The aim statement would also benefit from originality.

The literature review Must be clearly focused on explaining what we know with respect to the research aim and objectives and the knowledge gap and literature review must do three things:

1) define what we already know

2) show where scholars disagree, or what remains unclear

3) identify the exact gap your study will address

Literature review must not be descriptive part but it must be analytical and do this in the literature review t

Instead of: Author A says Author B says Do this While X suggests this overlooks However, this assumes which becomes problematic when

overview of my proposed plan for the 2,000-word briefing paper addressed to the UKs National Armaments Director regarding the governance of the 2035 autonomous logistics vehicle programme. Based on the coursework specification, I have selected Questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 to create a comprehensive narrative that applies lessons from the Ajax armoured vehicle programme to future autonomous systems.

Proposed Structure and Theoretical Framework

Section 1: Dependability and the Trust Gap (Question 1) In this section, I will explore the distinction between “trust that” (intellectual assent to technical specifications) and “trust in” (existential dependence on a system during a mission). Drawing on the Ajax case study, I will argue that the programme relied on “decontextualised assurance” that failed to capture operational reality. I plan to use Heideggers philosophical distinction between Pure Being and Process Being to recommend that requirements be specified through mission scenarios that account for the asset, materials, and human action combined.

Section 2: Reliability and Emergent Failure (Question 2) My analysis will focus on emergent, interaction-driven failure modes that do not stem from individual component breakdowns. I will argue that the human supervisor must be treated as a functional system element within the FMECA and Fault Tree Analysis to identify cumulative physiological or cognitive harms. This approach aims to avoid the system boundary problems encountered by Ajax, where the crew was excluded from formal reliability models.

Section 3: Evidence Architecture and Jacksons Heuristics (Question 5) I will propose a governance structure designed to avoid single points of failure in the evidence chain, such as the contractor monopoly on technical data seen in Ajax. I will explicitly apply Jacksons design heuristics, specifically “Drift Correction” to detect collective optimism bias and the “Inter-element Impediment” heuristic to ensure technical concerns reach senior decision-makers without being filtered by institutional boundaries.

Section 4: Safety-II, Migration, and Measurement (Question 6) Finally, I will advise a shift from Safety-I (preventing what goes wrong) to Safety-II (ensuring things go right under varying conditions). Using Rasmussens migration model, I will explain how cost and schedule pressures push programmes toward safety boundaries through “locally rational” decisions. To provide an objective measure of governance resilience, I will recommend the implementation of a Figure of Merit (FOM) to simulate the value of system performance across the entire lifecycle.

Word Count and Evidence Base

Each section will be approximately 450500 words, ensuring I meet the total limit while demonstrating the required depth of reading. I intend to blend practitioner reports, such as the NAO (2022) and Sheldon Review (2023), with academic theories from Hollnagel, Rasmussen, and Ferris to support my assertions.- –1

1- read all six units and try to cite from them for the paper, each quetion is covrer the unit, for exapmle q1 is for unit one

2- You will find recommendationed source use them will extra critical secah too meet the recbric + class units citation.

3- Read all Ajax Case Study Tasks that are related to the course work

4- read all COURSEWORK SPECIFICATION. Try to follow the rubric to get a good grade cuz last assigmt i got bas grade which 55, cuz it should be critical thinking + argumet with strong dephth redaing to get a good grade.

Ive attached my literature review draft for my dissertation on fire resistance of composite beams using FEA. It was mostly written using ai. Could you please rewrite, review and refine the writing so it reads more naturally and academically?

Please feel free to add, remove, or restructure anything if needed.

Assessment Brief

1 | KD5064 | Instrumentation Assignment | 2025-2026

Programme: Electrical and Electronic Engineering BEng/MEng (Hons)

Module Code: KD5064

Module Title: Analogue Electronics and Instrumentation

Distributed on: 26-01-2026

Submission Time

and Date: To be submitted by 23:59 GMT on [13-05-2026]

Word Limit: 2000 words

Weighting Component 002: This coursework accounts for 50% of the total mark for this module

Submission of

Assessment

Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA): Please note if your assignment is

submitted electronically it will be submitted online via Turnitin by the given deadline.

You will find a Turnitin link on the modules eLP site.

The assessment also includes a demonstration of the working of your hardware.

Details of the arrangement of this session will be provided during the workshops.

You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies.

They are available online here. You should take particular attention to the Academic

Misconduct Policy document in section 3.6, with regards to using Artificial Intelligence

Systems in your assignments. Please include a correctly filled AI declaration form

along with your submission.

Please ensure that you include a filled AI declaration statement (template on

Blackboard) along with your assessment.

It is your responsibility to ensure that your assignment arrives before the submission

deadline stated above. See the University policy on late submission of work.

Learning Outcomes assessed in this assessment:

Knowledge & Understanding

1. Demonstrate the application of knowledge in the design of instrumentation, and sensor systems with

reference to real world problems (C1).

Intellectual / Professional skills & abilities

2. Mathematically model system-level and circuit solutions for instrumentation and analogue electronic

systems (C3).

3. Simulate, build and test circuitry using simulation and practical lab equipment (C12, M12).

4. Analyse the specification and performance requirements necessary for sensors, instrumentation and

general circuit operation within a regulatory framework (C2,C13).

Assessment Brief

2 | KD5064 | Instrumentation Assignment | 2025-2026

Instructions on assessment

Monitoring solar irradiance is crucial for optimising photovoltaic (PV) system performance, predicting energy

yields, and ensuring proper system maintenance. Agricultural applications also require precise light level

monitoring for greenhouse automation and crop optimisation. Current meteorological standards require solar

irradiance measurements with high accuracy and temporal resolution.

Modern solar installations need real-time irradiance monitoring to automatically adjust panel tracking systems,

predict power output, and detect soiling or shading issues. Irradiance below 200 W/m typically renders PV

systems inefficient, while peak solar irradiance can reach 1200 W/m under ideal conditions.

You have to design a solar irradiance measurement instrument that will monitor ambient light levels.

The constraints for developing this solar irradiance measurement system are:

1. Maximum irradiance to be measured is 1200 W/m (equivalent to peak solar conditions)

2. Resolution of the instrumentation system is to be around 5 W/m

3. Assume you are using an Arduino UNO for data capture with an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) of

your choice

4. The sensor will be mounted on an outdoor weather station. The remaining components of the

instrument will be housed in a weather-resistant enclosure 30 m away from the sensor. Consider that

the sensor is connected to the remaining instrument with copper wires of resistance 0.0015 m/m.

You have to design and consider all elements of an instrument: (1) Sensor, (2) Signal conditioning circuit, (3)

Signal processing circuit and (4) Data presentation system (Figure 1). Please note, the working of the signal

conditioning circuit has to be demonstrated experimentally; more details in the assessment criteria below.

Figure 1: Different components of an instrument.

Assessment Brief

3 | KD5064 | Instrumentation Assignment | 2025-2026

Assessment Criteria

Task

number

Achievement Maximum

Mark

1 Sensing system

1.1 What are the different types of light/irradiance measurement sensors that could be

used for this application?

Please provide at least 2 advantages and 2 disadvantages of at least 2 types of

sensors identified above.

[5]

1.2 Choose a Light Dependent Resistors (LDR) from either of the links below:

RS Components

Farnell UK

The resistance of an LDR () varies as:

=

Here, is the irradiance in lux, is the sensitivity constant and is a calibration

constant; and need to obtained or derived from the data sheet of the sensor.

Clearly identify the specific sensor in your report and list the key specifications of the

sensor, relevant to your instrument design. Provide the link and the part number of the

sensor that is being used.

Explain the choice of the sensor.

[4]

1.3 Calculate the resistance of the sensor at the (1) maximum irradiance (1200 W/m) and

(2) minimum measurable irradiance (assume dawn/dusk conditions ~10 W/m).

Show relevant equations and detailed calculations.

[2]

2 Signal conditioning

2.1 Use a Wheatstone bridge to convert resistance to a voltage output.

Draw the circuit diagram clearly indicating all the key elements of the circuit.

Provide the expression for the output voltage from the signal conditioning circuit with

respect to the irradiance.

Justify (using theory, where possible) the values for each resistor element and source

voltage designed for the conditioning circuit.

[18]

2.2 Theoretically, derive the expression for sensitivity of the sensor + signal conditioning

circuit in Vm2

/W.

Plot the sensitivity of the circuit across the measurement range. Comment on your

observations from an instrument usage perspective.

[7]

2.3 Use experiments to:

1. Identify the bridge ratio with the maximum sensitivity for your circuit in 2.1.

2. Plot the output voltage from the signal conditioning circuit as a function of the

irradiance for the chosen bridge ratio.

3. Compare the experimental results with theory

Use a potentiometer or different resistors to simulate different levels of irradiance for

your sensor.

Describe the experimental procedure used. Use images where possible.

[26]

2.4 Calculate and comment on the linearity of the output voltage with irradiance across

the measurement range. Use data from experiments. Use plots, if convenient.

[8]

Assessment Brief

4 | KD5064 | Instrumentation Assignment | 2025-2026

3 Signal amplification

3.1 Design an amplifier to amplify the signal from the conditioning circuit to your desired

specifications. Draw a circuit diagram for the choice of amplifier, indicating all the

elements of the circuit.

Justify the choice of the elements used using calculations.

[7]

3.2 Plot the variation of the output voltage from the amplification circuit with irradiance.

Use experimental data.

[3]

4 ADC

4.1 Design an appropriate ADC for the instrument and justify using calculations. [5]

4.2 Plot the variation of the output voltage from the ADC with irradiance (use experimental

data or theory).

Comment on any differences in the output voltage obtained from ADC with that obtained

from the amplification circuit.

[5]

5 Challenge problem

Support your theoretical calculations using SIMULINK simulations. Attach an image of

the model that you have used.

Compare the results from the simulations with your theoretical calculation using

appropriate plots.

[10]

Please support your justifications and discussions with detailed calculations, where possible. Step marking

will be provided.

Ensure the graphs are properly formatted with clearly visible x-axis and y-axis labels.

Assessment Brief

5 | KD5064 | Instrumentation Assignment | 2025-2026

ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS

You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are available online

here.

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the following

penalties will apply.

For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without

approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.100%) shall be deducted from the

assessment mark.

Coursework submitted more than 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without

approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero will be awarded for the

assessment and the module will be failed, irrespective of the overall module mark.

These provisions apply to all assessments, including those assessed on a Pass/Fail basis.

The full policy can be found here.

Word limits and penalties

If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover sheet. The

word count does not include: appendices, glossary, footnotes, tables, figure captions, equations.

Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. dib-dab nonsense

analysis (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.

Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be

made available within 24hours of them requesting it be submitted.

The full Word Limit Policy is available here.

Academic Misconduct

The Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) contain the Regulations and procedures

applying to cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. The full policy is available at

here. You should take particular attention to the Academic Misconduct Policy document in section 3.6, with

regards to using Artificial Intelligence Systems in your assignments. Please include a correctly filled AI

declaration form along with your submission.

You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion and other forms of academic misconduct as referred to in the

Academic Misconduct procedure of the assessment regulations are taken very seriously. Assignments in

which evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.